Title: To James Madison from Josef Yznardy, 26 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Yznardy, Josef
To: Madison, James

26 January 1804, Cádiz. “Absences & Sickness has deprived me of being able to make a formal liquidation of my old Accounts with that Government; but now I have the pleasure to inclose them to your goodselves, adding that of my disbursments & expences from April 1801. down to the 31st. December last Year; by which you will see that a Ballance of $6018.22/100 is in my favour; which Sum you will observe the long Space of time I am deprived of and that the Small premium of 6. ⅌ Cent ⅌ annum which I charge is not a Sufficient recompense; when the regular premium in this City is from 9. to 12%.” Asks that JM order reimbursement by remittances on London. Pinckney “has paid me the expences & supplies to Seamen every Six months very regularly” in accordance with JM’s circular.
“On my arrival to this City I found that many of those that should have Signed the accounts agreable to instructions, died of the Sickness suffer’d here in the Year 1800. on which account I took the determination agreable to said Instructions that three Merchants of the first respectability of this City & whose Signatures are well Known in that Continent, should after examining my Books, declare to the truth of the Contents of said Accounts & Sign their respective names which they have done; and make no doubt will be full sufficient to prove the legality of said Accounts.
“I have not charged a farthing for the high expences I have made, & which I am still making in the unjust suit with J, Israel yet to be determined, and which are to be made good to me agreable to the offers of Mr. Lincolm [sic] then Secretary of State; and which account I will remit as soon as terminated, the Security given by me of $12000. still exists in that Continent.
“I likewise inclose you the List of the Vessels that arrived & Sailed the last Six months of 1803.
“By my next I will have the pleasure to remit you an Account of the Neat Proceeds of the Timber Saved of the Ship Sally Capt. J, R, Archer, that was sold at Public Auction in this Office.”
The news of the Philadelphia caused him great concern, “& more so the Slavery of its brave Officers & Crew, as the Bar⟨ba⟩rians will augment their perfidious rigour, but much is to ⟨be⟩ expected in the brave Conduct & dexterity of Commodore Ed⟨.⟩ Preble.” Has learned nothing of the determination of Spain with respect to Louisiana, of the state of relations with France and Great Britain, or “of the Spanish Neutrality (alltho’ news from Madrid acertains it) notwithstanding that our Marine & Land forces are in a pasific State; but it is assured that Portugal is fearfull of loosing its good understanding with England.”
“With your esteemed Circular of the 1st. October ulto. I received the Book of Laws passed in the last Session of Congress, and to the Contents of said Circular regarding the returns you call for, I have under date of the 3d. November ⅌ Duplicate fully answered [not found].
“The Sickness at Malaga (thanks to the Almighty) is entirely over, after taken away very near 7000 Souls.” Adds in a postscript: “Capt. William James a Citizen of the U. S. purchased a French Brig (formerly English Vessel) in this Bay, and I have given the necessary Papers under a formal obligation to navigate to any of the Ports of the said U, S.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Cádiz, vol. 1). 3 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Yznardy; docketed by Wagner: “Recd. 14 May / His accounts.” Enclosures not found.

   Circular Letter to American Consuls and Commercial Agents, 1 Aug. 1801 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 2:1–4).

   For the yellow fever epidemic of 1800 in southern Spain, see ibid., 4:267 n. 6, 268 nn. 7 and 8.

   For Yznardy’s disagreement with Joseph Israel, see ibid., 2:53 n. 8.

   See Madison and the Hiatus at the State Department, 4 Mar.–2 May 1801 (ibid., 1:1–2).

   See Yznardy to JM, 10 Dec. 1803.

   Ibid., 5:479.


Title: From James Madison to Tobias Lear, 26 January 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Lear, Tobias

Letter not found. 26 January 1804. Acknowledged in Lear to JM, 7 May 1804 (DNA: RG 59, CD, Algiers, vol. 7, pt. 1), and described in the enclosed diary’s 26 Apr. 1804 entry as containing his commission as consul general at Algiers, his commission to negotiate a peace with Tripoli, pamphlets on Louisiana, and newspapers.


Title: To James Madison from James Wolfe, 26 January 1804
From: Wolfe, James
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 26 January 1804. Acknowledged in Wagner to Wolfe, 28 Jan. 1804 (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14), as inquiring about a spoliation case. Wagner suggested that Wolfe write again giving the names of the vessel and captain involved in his claim. Wolfe apparently did so: on 2 Feb. 1804 Wagner wrote Wolfe acknowledging his 31 Jan. 1804 letter (not found) and stating that in the case of the Nancy, Captain Pease, an appeal had not been made in time, and the case had been dismissed by both the court of appeals and the commissioners under the Jay treaty (ibid.).


Title: From James Madison to Louis-André Pichon, 27 January 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Pichon, Louis-André

Sir.
Department of State, January 27th. 1804.
I had the honor to receive with your letter of this day the proces-verbal of the delivery of the possession of Louisiana, made to Citizen Laussat in his character of Commissary of the French Government by the Commissioners of His Catholic Majesty. Whilst in this document is recognized an important evidence of the friendly proceedings of the parties who concurred in the events which have procured that Country for the United States, the disposition which led you to admit of its being deposited among the records of this Department is duly respected and appreciated. I am &c.
James Madison.

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

   Pichon to JM, 25 Jan. 1804.


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 27 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

27 January 1804, London. No. 28. Received JM’s circular of 1 Oct. 1803 respecting sales of American registered vessels. Sent in his 10 Nov. letter the documents required. Has found the powers lately vested in consuls extremely useful in preventing “irregularities both in the Transfers of Vessels, and the treatment of Seamen.” “To render their effect more complete by insuring the deposit of the Ships Papers and preventing the possibility of any British Vessel using American Papers, forged or otherwise obtained I have thought it expedient to apply for a regulation to be made by this Government prohibiting the Entry or Clearance of any Vessel claiming to be American without permission previously obtained from this Office.” Encloses his letter to Monroe on the subject. Does not doubt “the accommodation will be readily conceded.”
“Tho’ a great Deal has been done to purify the ownership of American Vessels perhaps something is yet necessary to accomplish this desirable object and which Congress may hereafter see fit to regulate; there is the best Reason to believe that many Vessels under our Flag are partly owned by Merchants in this City; I would suggest also whether during the time of European War it might not be desirable to establish some Mode of verifying the character of the Cargoes of American Vessels, whether the Sea letter ought not to be delivered up on the termination of the single Voyage for which it is granted, or a suitable endorsement made to prevent the possibility of its being misapplied in the manner suggested in a former letter, Whether the Bills of Lading ought not in all Cases to be sworn to by the Shipper before the Consul or Collector and made distinctly to express the account for which the Vessel is freighted.”
Is aware of the objections the carrying trade might have to such regulations but cannot believe “the fair carrying trade woud in fact be injured; but inasmuch as it might be injured the substantial capital Trade of our Country woud be strengthened.” “It has been strongly urged against the establishment of the Principle in the law of Nations that ‘neutral Bottoms make free Cargoes’ the great encouragement which such a rule would offer to the carrying trade at the expence of the Capital Trade of the United States; the objection may be supposed to have more force as it comes principally from a quarter where interest woud seem to lead to an extension of the carrying trade. If then it was desirable to sacrifice a principle of Public Law for the support of which some have thought the honor of every independent Nation to be pledged; for the purpose of encouraging the Capital Trade of our Country, it is to be hoped that no substantial Objections can be made to such regulations as are calculated only to repress the dishonest and irregular Practices of the Carrying Trade; Perhaps the only evil of regulations calculated to define the Bonâ fide property on board American Vessels, would be, the admission which they would seem to make of the Right of Belligerents to Seize Enemies property on board Neutral Vessels.”
These remarks are prompted by a case he has lately investigated. “The Owner of an American Vessel lying in this port left a Power of Attorney with a London Merchant enabling him to freight, charter, or sell her: The Merchant freighted her with Goods for the Coast of South America, and put a Supercargo on board who assumed the Character of an American Citizen, & who was to appear to be the owner of the Cargo; the Supercargo had served an apprenticeship in Boston, but it happened to my knowledge was not a Citizen of the United States; they applied however for a Certificate which I refused of course; he probably obtained a Document of some sort, for the Merchant was satisfied that he would answer his purpose as an American; as I also knew that the Young Man had neither Property or Credit sufficient to procure this Cargo I questioned the Merchant upon this Subject, who candidly confessed that the Cargo belonged to himself and friends.
“I was disposed therefore to retain the Ships Papers till I had compelled them to name in the Bills of lading the true account for which the Property was shipped.” Later doubted that he had such authority, so he insisted only “that the Supercargo shoud not be named an ‘American Citizen’ in any Bill of lading signed by the Master; this point was conceded and the Ship Proceeded on her Voyage.”
“I have entered into this detail to shew the nature of the Trade which may be carried on from hence to which I mean to apply the observations respecting the Verification of Cargoes which I have taken the liberty to Submit.” Adds in a postscript: “The Ganges and Cyrus American Vessels purchased in this Port by William Moore of Nantucket on the 20th. of May 1802 and which sailed from this to Dunkirk have been taken engaged in the Whale Fishery under French Colours by a British Letter of Marque.”

   RC and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, CD, London, vol. 9). RC 6 pp.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Erving; 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)., 3:367–69. For enclosure, see n. 2.

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

   Erving enclosed a copy of his 19 Jan. 1804 letter to Monroe (4 pp.; docketed by Brent), in which he stated that means were often found to evade the provisions of the recent law giving consuls the power to require the deposit of ship’s papers at the consulate. He cited the case of the Cotton Planter of Charleston. Captain Hazard claimed the papers were in the hands of the consignee, who refused to deliver them to the consul. Erving understood that the ship was to be sold and feared the vessel might continue to pass as American. He had also been told by a crew member that the men had been “irregularly discharged.” He reported that “a Mr: M:Laurin from Bordeaux” had sold a ship in Île de France and come to London with a complete set of papers, which he refused to deliver to Erving for cancellation. As Erving had no power to enforce the law, he suggested “a regulation of the Custom houses here” that would forbid ships to enter or clear without written permission from their consuls. He also submitted for Monroe’s consideration the case of some coffee taken by a customhouse officer from Captain Wills of the Shepherdess. In a postscript he added that McLaurin had delivered the papers. Another copy of this letter, dated 9 Nov. 1803, which lacks the postscript but contains an extract from the act cited by Erving, is filed with Erving to JM, 10 Nov. 1803.

   See Erving to JM, 2 Nov. 1803.


Title: To James Madison from John Mercer, Isaac Cox Barnet, and William Maclure, 28 January 1804
From: Mercer, John,Barnet, Isaac Cox,Maclure, William
To: Madison, James

Sir,
Office of United States Commission of Claims, Paris, 28th. Jany. 1804.
On the 26th. Decer. we had the honor of transmitting to your Department a Report of the State of the Business before this Commission on that day, together with Copies of sundry Letters which had passed between the Minister of the United States & ourselves. We now send Duplicates of these Papers with Copies of other Letters which have for their object the means of defraying the necessary & current expences of the Board.
Since the originals of the above papers were communicated, we have been engaged in discharging the duties assigned us. In addition to the number of Cases found upon the “Conjectural Note,” and in which certified Copies of the Documents have been presented by the Agent of the United States, we have received others, making in the whole eighty. After having examined these Claims we have been enabled to direct the liquidation of only nineteen. The deficiency of papers in many Cases which we believe may be embraced by the Convention, has obliged us to postpone the greater number, under the expectation that the necessary evidence will be produced. The distance, however, of the Parties concerned may in some instances render it difficult to produce the proofs required within the time limitted in the Convention. This remark, though applicable to other Cases, will, we fear, apply particularly to Prize Causes, should not the Twenty millions of Livres be covered before we come to the consideration of that description of Claims.
In the Report above referred to we remarked that there are no prize cases found on the “Conjectural Note.” We had not then, nor have we since, been able to receive any satisfactory statement of their probable amount.
The Cases arising from the Embargo, though originating in the second year of the French Republic, are not yet before us. We are in the daily expectation of receiving the documents which belong to them.
No returns have yet been made of the Cases which have been sent to the French offices for Liquidation. We understand inofficially that such of them as have been liquidated under our Certificate, have been sent to the Treasury Department of this Government, there to be retained untill an opportunity is offered to such Persons as may have demands against the Claimant, in whose favor the Liquidation is made, to present their attachments. We do not think it prudent at this stage of the business to notice this step, or to give the Officers of the French Government reason to believe that we anticipate any measure on their part which may interrupt the execution of the Convention. The Minister of the United States has been informed by the American Agent of this procedure. We have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, Your obedient servants,
John Mercer.
I Cox Barnet
Wm Maclure

   RC, two copies, and enclosures (DNA: RG 76, Preliminary Inventory 177, entry 119, France, Convention of 1803 [Spoliation], Correspondence); letterbook copy (ibid.); letterbook copy (Fredericksburg, Va., Courthouse: John Francis Mercer Letterbook). Both RCs in a clerk’s hand, signed by Mercer, Barnet, and Maclure. Second RC marked duplicate; docketed by Brent: “enclosed in the Comm. letter of april 24.” For enclosures, see n. 1.

   The enclosures (7 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 6 May) are copies of the commissioners to Livingston, 20 Jan. 1804; Livingston to the commissioners, 21 Jan. 1804; the commissioners to Delessert and Company, 24 Jan. 1804; Delessert and Company to the commissioners, 4 Pluviôse an XII (25 Jan. 1804); the commissioners to Delessert and Company, 25 Jan. 1804; the commissioners to Mallet Frères and Company, 26 Jan. 1804; and the commissioners to Willink and Van Staphorst, 27 Jan. 1804. The commissioners asked Livingston whether he was authorized to advance their secretary some of the funds appropriated for the board by the U.S. government. Livingston replied that he had received no direct communication on the subject but had seen a law appropriating funds for the salaries of the board and its staff; he presumed they had seen the same law in the newspapers. The commissioners then wrote Delessert and Company, who had advanced the funds drawn by Livingston and Monroe for the use of the board, asking whether they were authorized to provide funds under the new law. Delessert and Company replied that they had been authorized in the former case by Willink and Van Staphorst and could only pay out funds with authorization from them or from Gallatin. They offered to advance the commissioners money on their own private accounts, an offer which the commissioners refused, saying they needed money only in their official capacity. The commissioners sent Mallet Frères and Company a receipt for 4,480 livres tournois to be debited to the board’s account and wrote to Willink and Van Staphorst asking them to lodge a credit with Mallet Frères for the amount appropriated by Congress whenever they received official notice from the U.S. government.

   For a copy of the conjectural note, see Moore, International Adjudications, 5:164–67. For an English translation, see ASPAmerican State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States … (38 vols.; Washington, 1832–61)., Foreign Relations, 6:170–73.

   For the embargo at Bordeaux, see Fulwar Skipwith to JM, 1 Jan. 1804, and n. 2.


Title: From James Madison to Ebenezer Stevens, 28 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Stevens, Ebenezer

28 January 1804, Department of State. “In answer to your letter of the 19th. inst. I authorize you to draw upon the Purveyor for twelve hundred and eighty eight dollars the sum awarded to Mr. Cotton as additional freight for the Anna Maria. The draft should be made payable at two or three days sight to ensure the receipt of the money to be remitted to the Purveyor before it is presented for payment.”

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

   On the same day JM also wrote to Gallatin requesting that he remit $1,280 to Tench Coxe to enable him to pay Stevens’s draft for the freight of the Anna Maria (ibid.; 1 p.) and to Coxe notifying him of the authorization to Stevens and the request to Gallatin (RC owned by Joseph Rubinfine, West Palm Beach, Fla., 1992; 1 p.; letterbook copy [DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14]).


Title: To James Madison from James Leander Cathcart, 28 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Cathcart, James Leander
To: Madison, James

28 January 1804, Leghorn. “I have the honor to transmit for final settlement accompts & vouchers for expenditures, which with those already forwarded to the Department of State includes a statement of all expenditures made by me upon acct.: of the United States of America, from the date of my Commission as Consul of the U: S: at Tripoli July 10th 1797 unto the 31st: of Decemr: 1803.” According to JM’s orders has appointed John Woodside, Sr., of the Treasury Department his agent, as the enclosed copy of his power of attorney shows. Requests that JM permit Woodside “to finally close” all accounts between Cathcart and the U.S.
“For the sundry small expenditures for which their are no particular vouchers I have enclosed a general certificate specifying that such expenditures are customary & are made by all nations, for every thing of consequence, vouchers have been forwarded, & I hope & presume no difficulty will be made in passing my accompts as the sum for which regular vouchers are not attainable when divided by the number of years in which said sums were expended and compared to those already paid at Tripoli before my administration commenced, & at Tunis, & Algiers both before, & since, will appear very inconsiderable indeed, & every person acquainted with transacting public business in those parts are well aware that it is morally impossible to procure vouchers for every little expence which will inevitably occur.
“In order to evade the mortification which I would inevitably feel if the ammount of any of my charges should be contested, in my acct: in final settlement of the 31st: of December 1803 I have left several in blank, placing implicit confidence in the justice & equity of the President & executive not doubting but they will place such sums against those charges as will bear a proportion to the services render’d & the expences which I have incur’d in their execution.
“The first is for my services at Algiers during the process of our negotiation with that Regency, their prominent features are the reduction of the Dey’s demand from $2247.000 made by him for our Treaty on the 24th. of Decemr: 1794 to the sum of $525.500 the sum agreed to be paid by Mr. Donaldson on the 8th: of September 1795, the procuring a truce with the Regency of Tunis gratis for the term of eight months commencing the 8th. of Novemr: 1795 & the transacting the whole business of the negotiation the signing excepted, as is fully evinced by Messrs: Humphreys Donaldson & Barlow’s letters of that period & the public papers in the Office of the Department of State & those in my possession which the President has already perused copys of which shall be forwarded to the Department of State if required.
“Monsieur Famin at Tunis receiv’d the sum of four thousand dollars to my knowledge, for his services, Messrs: Farfara at Tripoli & others have receiv’d nearly the same sum for their services, & I to this moment have not receiv’d a cent for mine altho the[y] have receiv’d the approbation of Government & their Agents in the most unequivocal & flattering manner, which to a liberal mind is certainly a very great satisfaction, but unfortunately that satisfaction will not contribute to the maintaining or the educating of my family.
“The next charge is for the Freight of my vessel the Independent sent by the Dey of Algiers & Mr: Barlow from Algiers with Dispatches for Mr. Montgomery at Alicant Coll: Humphreys at Lisbon & the President of the U: S: & sundry small expences attending our negotiation, those Charges have already been admited, & I have receiv’d a sum in part payment, I therefore have pass’d the ballance to my Credit.
“The three different voyages which I have made to different ports in the Mediterranean by the orders of government has occasioned me a considerable deal of trouble & expenses, exclusive of the passages from Tripoli to Malta & Leghorn when War was declared by that Regency against us, & the loss I sustain’d by the event, a part of my furniture I inevitably left behind me at Tripoli the most valuable I sent to Tunis & I have never been able to procure their return notwithstanding I have wrote to Messrs. Eaton & Davis several times on the subject, & when I was last at Tunis I found them composing part of the furniture of the Consular house which I had always imagined was furnish’d at the expense of the United States, it is therefore reasonable that I should expect some allowance from Government for the expenses attending those extraservices & unavoidable losses especially as my expectation is sanctioned by the usage of all nations at Peace with Barbary.
“Out fits are allow’d by all nations that sends Consuls to Barbary & Mr: Lear informs me that he has a year’s salary allow’d him, & you have mentioned in yours of the 16th: of July 1803 that a year’s salary in like manner will be allow’d me, I have left the Charge in blank in order that it may be fill’d up either as Consul for Algiers Tunis or Tripoli in neither of said capacity’s have I ever receiv’d any emolument except my Salary.
“You certainly would conceive me void of sensibility was I to omit, mentioning how much my feelings are wounded by the consideration that both my predecessor & successor at Algiers have had double the salary allow’d them that was deem’d a sufficient compensation for me when appointed to that Regency, my conduct has been approved by three different administrations & I really am not conscious of having ever merited such pointed neglect nor can I imagine to this moment the reason my services has been so amazingly undervalued, I certainly hold them in competition with any that ever has been employ’d on this service, & I am sensible that the most scrupulous comparison would tend to my advantage.
“Those that are acquainted with living in Europe & the various impositions which are practised on officers in a public capacity exclusive of a necessary etiquette which renders house keeping extremely expensive, will easily believe that my salary has not been sufficient to defray my expences since my arrival in Italy in June 1801, I have therefore left that charge likewise in blank in order that it may be fill’d as the President may judge proper & you may think just.
“What ever ballance may be in my favor after deducting the sum of $5050. 69/100 cash in my possession belonging to the United States not yet accounted for to Government, you will please to order to be paid to my Agent & take his receipt for the said.
“I have heard nothing from Barbary since my last nor is there any thing here worthy relating.”

   RC, two copies (DNA: RG 59, CD, Tripoli, vol. 2). First RC 5 pp.; docketed by Wagner as received 10 Apr. and with the notation: “Explanation of his last accounts. Sent the accounts to the Treasury.” Enclosures not found.

   Cathcart states elsewhere that the final cost of the treaty he helped Donaldson negotiate with Algiers was $585,000 (Cathcart, The Captives, pp. 182–84). For the treaty, see Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:275–317.

   For the text of the truce with Tunis, see Knox, Naval Documents, Barbary WarsDudley W. Knox, ed., Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (6 vols.; Washington, 1939–44)., 1: 121–22.

   For Joel Barlow’s hire of Cathcart’s vessel to deliver dispatches, see Barlow to Cathcart, 8 May 1796 (printed ibid., 1:155–56).

   PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:185–87.


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 28 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

28 January 1804, London. No. 29. “Having had the honor to receive your Letter (Novr. 1st. 1803) respecting Alexander Mc.Elwee an American Citizen impressed into the British Service, I lost no time in applying to the Lords of the Admiralty for his discharge. Copies of my letter and their answer are herewith inclosed.

“You will please to observe that their Lordships presume Mc.Elwee not to be at present in the English Service, but if he is so in fact that it will be necessary for his father to inform me on board of what Ship he is detained before another Application can be made.”

   RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, CD, London, vol. 9). RC 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Erving. For enclosures, see n. 1.

   The enclosures are copies of Erving to Evan Nepean, secretary of the Board of Admiralty, 9 Jan. 1804 (3 pp.), applying for Alexander McElwee’s release and repeating JM’s arguments as given in JM to Monroe, 1 Nov. 1803; and Nepean to Erving, 11 Jan. 1804 (1 p.), in which Nepean stated that since it appeared McElwee was no longer in the British navy, nothing more could be done.


Title: To James Madison from George W. Erving, 29 January 1804
From: Erving, George W.
To: Madison, James

Private (No 18)
Dear Sir
London Jany 29. 1804.
Since the arrival of Mr Monroe, the frequency of his dispatches to you & the view he is known to possess of all our interests; render it unnecessary for me to trouble you as formerly with frequent, & probably what were very tedious letters: Perhaps too at this crisis it woud on all other accounts be proper to leave wholly to his more matured & exercised judgement & discretion, the treatment of European affairs; confining myself rather to those things which fall immediately within the department of my public duties. I beleive that I have some time since acknowledged the receipt of your (private) letter of June 15th, in which I congratulate myself to find a feeling with respect to our seamen, not reprehending the tone which I have been used to take on this interesting subject; soon after the arrival of Mr Monroe I addressed a statement to him as the ground of representation to this government, in which he suggested all those alterations both in substance & stile, which have given it a character of moderation & forbearance, not perhaps comporting with the temper of my letters to Sir Evan Nepean (copies of which were forwarded to you,) but which certainly form a better foundation for any subsequent measures of accommodation. Mr M. will inform you that his note to this government tho delivered long since, has not yet produced attention, or any modification of their system: Perhaps the dignity & independence of our national character, & the justice & protection due from governments to individuals are more involved in this question, than any pressing commercial interests; the delay of satisfaction will at least have the Effect of strengthening that general sentiment which seems to have taken place in our country & which cannot but be productive of good.

Upon the important question whether the government of any country is to indemnify the neutral for the loss which he may sustain by capture of authorized cruisers, beyond the responsibility of the Captor; no certain & fixed principles seem to be acknowledged here: The Court of Admiralty not being a court of justice regulating itself by statutes, or having a common law, can only be considered as a mere political tribunal, forming its decisions indeed upon public law, but as that law may be from time to time construed or modified by the policy or the Exigencies of the government: Ordinarily then the Captor must be satisfied with what he can obtain from the Captors; but in particular cases where the claimant has been the subject of a government whose favor it was important to court, & who has moved in his behalf, immediate compensation has been granted from the Treasury; not however by the interference or Agency of the Court of Admy. Such cases have occurred frequently, & very lately some Russian claims have been settled in this manner, as little publicity as possible is given to these arrangements & they are never suffered to be introduced or mentioned in the Court as grounds of decision. I cannot find that any tracts have been published on the theory, but certainly the opinions of the best civilians are clearly in favor of the claim of the captured on the government of the Captor, & that as a mere principle of right & justice nothing is more clear in the public law; Yet, in the British Courts of Admy the government does not make itself a party, of course no decision of the court can affect it. It is said that if the government was to consent to place itself quoad under the jurisdiction of the Court, that the enormities committed by privateers woud be greater, the Captor woud most commonly Escape, & even a door woud be opened for most extensive frauds & collusions between the neutral & the captor: the question of good prize or not is only tried, if the decision is favorable the claimant is left by compulsory processes to recover of the captor as he may; for the rest he must depend upon the interference of his own government, the success of which will of course depend upon existing circumstances. No compensation then may be expected from government but by treaty stipulations. By Mr Jays treaty perhaps we may be considered as having very materially injured the public right; a concession made (& which indeed we were called upon by no rules of justice to make) as an Equivalent for compensation due to us under the law of nations, seems to be an admission that we have no pure right. In Jays treaty the law of nations in this respect is not adverted to, & we are made to appear before the tribunal of British justice almost in formâ pauperis. The late Swedish convention has a vast advantage of us & is upon this subject an important document; you have doubtless seen it in the papers, but lest not, I will Endeavour to procure a copy & forward it if possible by this opportunity. The security Exacted here from the owners of privateers is shamefully small. Two bail & the commander & owner in 1500£ for a small Vessel, & in 3000£ for one of large force. In fact they consider the privateers as “primary schools” for the seamen, as well as a saving in Convoys. The neutral surely has not the same interest in these objects, & every principle of justice, independant of the law of nations, seems to require that the government shoud Exact higher bonds, or consider itself responsible for deficiencies. The Official letter which accompanies this refers to a subject (the verification of Cargoes) which may be thought of some consequence; perhaps I do not see all the objections to similar regulations; but it does appear to me an object of importance to give to the “American trade” an honorable, & [(]if anything belonging to trade can be so) a dignified character; to lop off all those speculating eccentricities of desperate adventurers, & half naturalized citizens, who in every quarter of the world are degrading the American name, interfering with its fair & legitimate commerce, & sometimes jeopardizing its peace. Our country may derive strength and importance from a substantial trade on its own capital, but does it require these factitious aids? Its commerce & its agriculture shoud go hand in hand Extend & improve themselves together: Trade upon foreign capitals & a very extensive carrying trade may be important to some small states, & may have brought such into being; have we not better means of subsistence, & more profitable objects of pursuit in the cultivation of our rich territories? From these alone can we derive national strength & importance, & unassailable independance; by correcting this insatiable money getting spirit we shall become less vulnerable from without, our manners less adulterated & more dignified, & we shall get rid of those nests of foreign factors & Agents by which the country is at present infested. Whether or not this is a proper time for an alteration of system I am unable to judge, but it woud appear that infinite advantages may be derived from a strict maritime & commercial code, which shoud confine the profits of our trade to our own citizens, & as much as possible to our own capitals, which shoud prevent the Establishment of foreign Merchants in our Towns or the possibility of their owning Vessels under our flag, or having any partnership in the Ships or commercial profits of the United States. These & a long string of similar reflections which I will not trouble you with, have been excited by what I have had occasion to observe in the course of my duties here. I have been told by more than one Merchant, who seem to consider that the United States are indebted to them for their partnerships & the use of their capitals, that several ships out of Charleston particularly, are partly owned in this Town, these are generally Scotch Houses, & the Masters of the ships Scotchmen; a most pernicious clan. There is a certain Captain McNiel for instance who appears to own two ships—The “Ruby” & the “Two freinds[”] the latter of which he commands himself! As to the former, Simon McCormack a black man, but very intelligent, & I believe honest, made an affidavit before me, which merely as a matter of curiosity I enclose. I questioned Mr Boyd (of the house of Caldeleugh Boyd & Reed whom McC. said were the owners) upon the subject, his mode of treating the business was not calculated to remove any suspicions which McCormacks Evidence might have suggested, but on the contrary rather to confirm them; for he said that there was no doubt that many ships from Charleston were owned in whole or in part by Merchants of this place! He endeavoured also to procure the impressment of McCormack, either to get him out of the way, or from motives of revenge.
I am not able by this conveyance to forward my consular Accts for the last half year as the Accounts of the Consuls are not yet all settled; with respect to the Agency account, as a great part of the 1st Instalment remains yet undrawn for, it woud be more convenient to keep it open till June, this I will do unless you direct otherwise. I am Dear Sir Very faithy truly & respecty yr. Obt
George W Erving

   RC (MHi: Winthrop Family Papers). Docketed by JM.

   See Erving to JM, 9 Nov. 1803.

   See Monroe to JM, 14 Dec. 1803, and n. 3.

   Erving doubtless meant to write “claimant” here.

   Quoad hoc: as far as this; to this extent.

   In forma pauperis: as a poor person.

   The Anglo-Swedish treaty of 25 July 1803 stated that if one of the parties was involved in a war in which the other was neutral, ships of the neutral party would refrain from carrying certain specified military stores to the enemy of the belligerent party. Ships of the belligerent had the right to bring in neutral ships carrying naval stores to enemy ports and to buy these stores, provided they were neutral products, at a defined fair price. If neutral ships were brought in under suspicion of traveling to an enemy port and proved instead to be headed for a neutral port, they and their cargoes were to be released, unless the belligerent chose to buy the cargo, “in which case the full price shall be paid.” Certain listed items—herring and various wood and metal products—were not to be confiscated, provided they were neutral, not enemy, property (National Intelligencer, 9 Jan. 1804).

   Enclosure not found.

   Enclosure not found.


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 30 January 1804
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

No 97
Sir
Paris 30th Jany 1803 [1804]
I find I was under a mistake, when in my last I informed you that the Commissioners were going on with their liquidations; none have been sent up with their final determination, but the first Seven, as I now am informed (tho not from them, for they communicate nothing to me) these were Sent up before the arrival of Mr Maclure from England. They are yet retained in the French Treasury, from whence I do not think it proper to get them sent, tho’ I could do it by a single word. But I think the drawing bills for this triffling amount would have the appearance of partiality, & the rather as a claim of my brothers is among the number. For it is yet very problematical whether I shall be able to obtain permission not to draw if the measures of the commissioners should reduce me to the necessity of complying with your instructions before I receive your ulterior directions, for I am quite in the dark as to the reasons on which they will be grounded. The difficulty of touching the business may be judged by this little anecdote. I called a few days ago upon the minister [of] the treasury he asked me whether I had seen Mr Talle[r]and I told him not but that I was going to call upon him that day—he has a message for you from the first consul about which he wished me to speak to you but as it was not my business I told him I would not interfere—what is it? The first consul has directed him to tell you that if the stock was not delivered by the 21 of this month which compleats the three months from the ratification he would consider the treaty as void—but sir we have three months from the [del]ivery of the country and we have acted so generously [as] not to avail ourselves of that delay—but the consul says it is from the [rat]ification and [del]ivery and it may be either at his option I do not however tell you that this is my opinion I believe not nor can I easily believe that it is [the] first consul[s] —but supposing it was and well founded what right have you to ask me for the stock have you not sold it and if Hope and Baring are satisfied what right have you to complain nor have I any dou[b]t that their agent will receive the stock even within three months from the ratification—he Seemed a little Startled at this. But, Says he, if we are not entitled to the Stock we are to the bills which you hold as its purchase, & we have a right to call for the first third. Pardon me the treaty has nothing to do with the bills this was an after transaction [between] you and the bankers and for your mut[ual] security you put the bill into my hands to be taken out by your mutual consent my government have no concern in this nor I any other than to deliver them to your jo[i]nt order—but cannot you contrive to let us have a part of the amount? Certainly not [till] the arrival of Master Baring when I hope you will between you take the who[le] [of] this heavy charge off of my hands. I did not think it proper after this notice to go to Mr Talleyrand, as I chuse if he had any thing to Say on this Subject that he Should do it in writing, that my answer might meet the Consul’s eyes [with] more force than they would dare to represent it & he has been very ill, but is now recovering. You may judge by this how delicate a business it will be to ask any modification of [the] treaty till they got their money.
Some Consular arrangements are necessary here, particularly with respect to wrecks, But I have no power to make them as they must be mutual. Some general Commercial principles might also be established to the advantage of both countries.

There is no rel[ax]ation of the preparation for the descent tho’ no time fixed for making it. The late Spanish Ambassador is dead. I have the honor to be Sir with the highest esteem & most respectful attachment Your most Obt hum: Servt
Robt R Livingston

   RC (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 8); draft (NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy (NHi: Livingston Papers, vol. 1). RC marked “1804” by Wagner; docketed by Wagner as received 2 June 1804. 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.).

   Miscoded “county.”

   Miscoded “mpivery.”

   Miscoded “agreeable.”

   Miscoded “sevenification.”

   Miscoded “mpivery.”

   Miscoded “spi.”

   Miscoded “douait.”

   Miscoded “council.”

   Miscoded “mutleast.”

   Miscoded “ci.”

   Miscoded “who county.”

   Miscoded “reb.”

   Draft inserts “since” here.

   Miscoded “than.”

   José Nicolás de Azara, marqués de Nibbiano, died on 26 Jan. 1804 (Biographie universelle [1843–65 ed.], 2:534–35).


Title: From James Madison to Robert R. Livingston, 31 January 1804
From: Madison, James
To: Livingston, Robert R.

Sir,
Department of State January 31st. 1804
The two last letters received from you bear date on the —— and 30th September, so that we have been now four months without hearing from you. The last from me to you was dated on the 16. day of January, giving you information of the transfer of Louisiana on the 20th of December by the French Commissioner Mr Laussat to Governor Claiborne and Genl Wilkinson the Commissioners appointed on the part of the U States to receive it. The letters subsequent to that date, from Governor Claiborne who is charged with the present administration of the ceded territory, shew that the occupancy by our troops of the military posts on the Island of New Orleans and on the Western side of the Mississippi was in progression; and that the state of things in other respects was such as was to be expected from the predisposition of the bulk of the inhabitants, and the manifest advantages to which they have become entitled as Citizens of the U States. A Bill providing for the Government of the Territory has been some time under the deliberation of the Senate, but has not yet passed to the other branch of the Legislature. The inclosed copy shews the form in which it was introduced. Some alterations have already been made and others may be presumed. The precise form in which it will pass cannot therefore be foreknown; and the less so as the peculiarities and difficulties of the case give rise to more than the ordinary differences of opinion. It is pretty certain that the provisions generally contemplated will leave the people of that District for a while, without the organization of power as dictated by the Republican Theory; but it is evident that a sudden transition to a condition so much in contrast with that in which their ideas and habits have been formed, would be as unacceptable, and as little beneficial to them, as it would be difficult for the Government of the United States. It may fairly be expected, that every blessing of liberty will be extended to them as fast as they shall be prepared and disposed to receive it. In the mean time the mild spirit in which the powers derived from the Government of the United States will under its superintendance be administered, the parental interest which it takes in the happiness of those adopted into the general family, and a scrupulous regard to the spirit and tenor of the Treaty of Cession, promise a continuance of that satisfaction among the people of Louisiana, which has thus far, shewn itself. These observations are made, that you may be the better enabled to give to the French Government the explanations and assurances due to its solicitude in behalf of a people whose destiny it has committed to the justice, the honor and the policy of the United States.
It does not appear that in the delivery of the province by the Spanish authorities to M Laussat anything passed denoting its limits either to the east the west or the north. Nor was any step taken by M Laussat either whilst the province was in his hands or at the time of his transfering it to ours calculated to dispossess Spain of any part of the territory east of the Mississippi. On the contrary in a private conference he stated positively that no part of the Floridas was included by the eastern boundary France having strenu[ously] insisted to have it extended to the Mobile which was peremptorily refused by Spain. We learn from M Pinkney that the Spanish government holds the same language to him. To the declaration of M Laussat however we can oppose that of the French minister made to [you] that Louisiana extended to the River Perdido and to the Spanish government as well as to that of France if it should have changed its ground we can oppose the treaties of St Ildefonso and of [September] 30 1803 interpretted by facts and fair inferences. The question with Spain will enter into the proceedings of M Monroe on his arrival at Madrid whither he will be instructed to repair as soon as he shall have executed at London the instructions lately transmitted to him in relation to the impressment of seamen from American vessels and several other points which call for just and stipulated arrangements between the two Countries. As the question relates to the French government the President relies on your prudence and attention for availing yourself of the admission by M Marbois that Louisiana extended to the River Perdido and for keeping the weight of that government in our scale against that of Spain. With respect to the western extent of Louisiana M Laussat held a language more satisfactory. He considered the Rio Bravo or del [Norde] as far as the 30 N latitude as its true boundary on that side. The northern boundary we have reason to believe was settled between France and Great Britain by Commissioners appointed under the Treaty of Utrecht who separated the British and French Territories West of the Lake of the Woods by the 49 of latitude. In support of our just claims in all these cases it is proper that no time should be lost in collecting the best proofs which can be obtained. This important object, has already been recommended generally to your attention. It is particularly desirable that you should pro[cure] an authenticated copy of the commercial charter granted by Louis Fourteenth to Crozat in 1712 which gives an outline to Louisiana favorable to our claims at the same time that it is an evidence of the highest and most unexceptionable authority a copy of this charter is annext to the English translation of Joutel Journal of La Sales Last Voy[age] the French original not containing it. A record of the charter doubtless exists in the archives of the French govern[ment] and it may be expected that an attested copy will not be refused to [you]. It is not improbable that the charter or other Documents relating to the Mississippi project a few years after may afford some light and be attainable from the same source. The proceedings of the Commissioners under the Treaty of Utrecht will merit very particular research as they promise not only a favorable northern boundary but as they will decide an important question involved in a convention of limits now depending between the UStates and Great Britain. To those may be added whatever other documents may occur to your recollection or researches including maps &c. If the secret treaty of Paris in Seventeen hundred & sixty two or three between France & Spain and an entire copy of that of St Ildefonso in [1800] can be obtained they may also be useful. An authentication of the precise date at least of the former, is very important. You will be sensible of the propriety of putting M Monroe in possession of all the proofs and information which [you] may obtain should he take Paris in his way to Madrid you will have the best of opportunities for the purpose.
In my letter of the 9th of Novr. last I communicated the ideas entertained by the President with respect to the pecuniary provision in the last Convention with France in behalf of our Citizens. It is presumed that you will have found no difficulty in obtaining the concurrence of the French Government in suspending drafts in favor of any, until the claims of all shall have been ascertained. Should the sum of 3,750,000 dollars be insufficient for the payment of all, as becomes daily more probable, the least that ought to be attempted, will be an apportionment of it among them. Perhaps more than this may now be attended with great difficulty; altho’ it is clear that the patronage of the Government of the U States, is due on prior considerations to some classes of the claimants, than to others, to those for example whose property was wrongfully taken on the high seas by force, than to those who by voluntary contracts placed a confidence in the French Government which was disappointed. It seems requisite nevertheless that some effort should be made in behalf of those whose claims were embraced by the Convention of Sept 30. 1800. and not provided for by that of April 30. 1803. With this view the President thinks it proper that you should adjust with the French Government a provision for comprehending in the Convention of 1803 the claims still remaining under the Convention of 1800. and for apportioning the money payable at the Treasury of the UStates among the claimants under both. Or as the object next to be pursued, a provision for apportioning among the whole the money so payable, and also the balance chargeable on France according to the tenor of the last Convention. Or as the object next in order, a provision for apportioning among the whole the money payable at the Treasury of the United States, leaving to the claimants under the last Convention, the balance from France, to which it entitles them. Or lastly, a provision for apportioning among the claimants under the last Convention the money so payable, instead of paying it in the order of settlement or according to any other rule of preference.
The first arrangement takes for granted that France considers herself bound, notwithstanding the last Convention to satisfy all the claims provided for by the first Convention and pretermitted by the last. The supposition is founded on several expressions and implications of its text, as at the head of the 5th Article “all agreements &c” and particularly in the closing words of Art X and with respect to debts the provision is express in Art XII. This construction is the more reasonable also, inasmuch as the reciprocal stipulations of the Convention of 1800 in this particular were carried into immediate and full effect on the part of the U States; and as a contrary construction would imply the relinquishment, without equivalent, of vested rights, never formally contested by France.
Should France however be unlikely to admit her responsibility for the pretermitted claims, and there be danger that by urging her responsibility at this time, an equitable modification of any sort may be rendered more difficult, it will be best to pass over the question for the present, taking care that no waver be made which may either still further weaken the claims against France, or give colour for turning them over against the UStates.
Neither of the succeeding alternatives will increase the balance payable by France, nor is it contemplated that in these or any other modifications whatever the Treasury of the United States is to be made chargeable with more than 3,750,000 dollars; or rather with more than so much of that sum as would satisfy the debts to which it is subjected by the last Convention.
The object of each of the proposed modifications is to distribute whatever is to be paid by the U States and by France, among all the claimants, as well those omitted as those included in the last Convention, and in such a manner, that every claimant of both descriptions shall receive a fair proportion from the Treasury of the UStates, as well the balance to be paid by France.
The claimants who were provided for in the last Convention cannot justly complain of any arrangement that will replace on the same footing with themselves, their fellow claimants left by the last, under the first Convention, as being a retrospective measure, working a disadvantage to them. The retrospective proceeding will be found to be in the last Convention, so far as it is disadvantageous in its operation to those claiming under the first only. An act superseding a retrospective act, is not itself retrospective. The effect of it is to restore and enforce the original rule of justice.
Should the French Government refuse to concur in any proposition that will restore the latitude given to claims as defined by the first Convention, and which is narrowed and obscured by the text of the last, it will be proper to settle with the Government if it can be done, such a construction of this text as will be most favorable to all just claims, particularly those for freights, indemnities, property put in requisition and the separate property of individuals, who are concerned in the disqualifying partnerships mentioned in the Convention, which are said to be threatened with rejection by the Board at Paris. It is to be kept in view however, that in case the whole sum of 3,750,000 dollars should not be absorbed by the construction of the Board, the construction settled with the French Government, is not to enlarge the sum to be paid by the Treasury of the UStates beyond that to which the Treasury would be made liable by the Construction of the Board.
It will occur to you that in case the field of Claims should be enlarged, the time for presenting and settling them ought to be lengthened. You can yourself best decide how far a prolongation of the time necessary for the claims now admissible before the Board may be necessary and ought to be attempted. There is reason to believe that not a few of this description are yet to be forwarded from this side of the Atlantic.
The Island of St Domingo having been evacuated by the French troops, and the black chiefs, having declared it to be in a state of Independence, the trade between it and the U States falls under some delicate considerations. Had the British taken possession of the Island, it would have followed that their regulations on the subject would be entitled to the respect of neutral nations. It does not appear however, that any such plan is meditated by them, or indeed that it would be permitted by the black inhabitants. It has even been signified thro’ a respectable tho’ not official channel that no monopoly or restrictions in favor of British commerce will be attempted by means of Treaties or arrangements with the inhabitants. Be this as it may, the question will remain, in what light our trade with the Island is to be regarded and treated by France.
This question may be considered first, as it relates to her rights, next as it relates to her interest.
As it is not the purpose of the UStates to discuss the Controversy between France and St Domingo, much less to espouse at the expence of a war with the former, the station which has been or may be taken by the latter, the rights of France in the present case will be admitted to be the same, as they were prior to the evacuation of the Island by her troops. What were then her rights on the subject of neutral commerce with the Island? They were first, to intercept on the high seas, contraband of War, destined to the place with which she was at war. For altho’ the war be a civil and not a national war, the application of this principle has not been contested by the U States. Secondly—To intercept a trade with any ports or places which may be actually besieged or blockaded by her forces—Thirdly—to execute within the territorial jurisdiction of the Island, the municipal laws enacted by her authority against the trade of neutrals.
Thus far her rights will continue to be admitted, and thus far only. She cannot of right require the Government of the United States to enforce her claims on the high seas, with respect to contraband of war, or to blockades, by prohibitory and penal statutes of their own. Neither can she of right seize or disturb in any manner on the high seas, and beyond the limits of territorial jurisdiction, a neutral commerce in articles neither contraband of war, nor about to enter a blockaded port; nor expect the U States to cooperate by their municipal, with her municipal laws, in preventing such a commerce. It is sufficient in all those cases, that they do not either enter themselves into this commerce; or protect their Citizens engaging therein against the legal consequences to which they are liable.
The rights here acknowledged to France go in fact beyond the doctrine maintained by her against Great Britain during our revolutionary war. You will find in the reply to the justifying memorial of the British Government in the year  that she even contested the application of the law of nations concerning contraband of war, to the case of a civil war insisting that in such a case, articles of that character, were exempt as in time of peace, from seizure or search until they should arrive within the operation of the municipal regulations.
Thus much as to the rights of France. It is next to be considered how far her interest and her best policy may require her to enforce or suspend them, during the present situation of St Domingo.
Should France at any time undertake a blockade of any part of the Island, it is not to be presumed that she will omit the means of enforceing it, which are authorized against neutral commerce by the law of Nations. She may be expected equally to avail herself of that law as it relates to a trade with the Island in contraband of War.
But with respect to a trade which merely exchanges a supply of the ordinary wants of the Island, for the surplus of its productions, it cannot be for the interest of France to forbid the trade to a neutral and friendly nation.
In the first place, if it were her wish to try the expedient of distressing the inhabitants into submission by cutting off that resource, the experiment would be defeated by her enemy whose naval force and commercial faculties are abundantly sufficient for the purpose.
In the next place, the tendency of such a prohibition, is not only to transfer the advantages of this commerce from her friends to her enemy, but to give to the latter all the means it affords for embittering the minds of the inhabitants against France, and for attaching them to her enemy.
Lastly: If the prohibition of the trade of neutrals, could not be frustrated, nor its place supplied, by a forced trade between Great Britain and the Island, what would be the effect? To starve the inhabitants into a return under the French authority? Far from it. It would have no other effect, than to turn their labour from the culture of articles, exchangable for imported food, to the culture of food for which their own soil and climate are adapted; thereby rendering them more independent of all external authority and connections, and lessening the Commercial value of the Colony to France, in case it should be finally reduced to subjection; at the same time that it would render this subjection the more difficult.
With the aid of such observations, the President wishes you to present the subject to the favorable attention of the French Government. They have occasionally been used in conversations with Mr Pichon, who has probably conveyed the subject to his Government. It is the more important that France should see her interest in its true light, not only as a free trade with St Domingo will be profitable in itself, but as the sanction of the French Government to it will preclude spoliations and disputes, not more injurious to our Citizens than unfriendly to the harmony between the two nations.
The Convention with Spain which was not agreed to at the last Session of Congress; has been resumed and ratified during the present. The objection to it was that it did not provide in sufficient extent, for repairing the injuries done to our commerce, particularly in omitting the case of Captures and condemnations by French cruizers and Consuls within Spanish responsibility. As the Convention does not abandon the omitted cases, but merely leaves them for further negotiation, it was judged best on the whole not longer to deprive that class of our Citizens who are comprehended in the Convention of —— the benefit of its provisions.

The claims of the others will be pursued with due attention and may perhaps be advantageously brought into the negotiation with which Mr Monroe and Mr Pinckney will be jointly charged. Such of them as Spain refused to submit to arbitration as proceeding from French Citizens and not from Spanish subjects are clearly supported by strict justice and by the soundest principles of public law. French Citizens within the jurisdiction of Spain were for the time subjects of Spain. Spain had a right to their allegiance and was responsible for their conduct. As well might she say, that a murder or robbery committed by a Frenchmen on an American, in the streets of Madrid was to be punished or redressed by France alone and not by her; as pretend that the illegal proceedings of Frenchmen within Spanish jurisdiction in the case of spoliations on our commerce are to depend on France, not on her for indemnification. Supposing France to be liable eventually, Spain is liable in the first resort; and can be relieved from it only, by shewing that she exerted all the reasonable means in her power for preventing and correcting the wrong, without being able to succeed in either. At first she seemed sensible of this. Her plea was in substance that circumstances did not permit her to controul the conduct of French Agents and Citizens within her jurisdiction. This plea being not very honorable to her sovereignty, nor sufficiently established by proof, and being not very consistent with the satisfaction which she may find it expedient to yield other nations particularly to Great Britain, whose commerce is at this time suffering like injuries from French cruizers and Consuls, it has given place to the plea that the erasure of the 2d. Article of our Convention with France in 1800 releases Spain as well as France, because France being liable in justice to Spain for the indemnities paid by the latter to the UStates would indirectly be deprived of the benefit of that release to her. To this the reply is given by the remarks already made. The injury proceeded from Spain. To Spain we look for reparation. Her claim for reimbursement on France is a question between her and France. It may be just or not just, according to circumstances, unknown to the U States. Spain may have found for any thing we know an equivalent for this use of her ports and her permissions, in advantages yielded by or expected from France. To this the fact may be added that indemnification has throughout been claimed from Spain, and not from France; or if from France, the application has been neither patronized nor authorized by the Government of the U States. Applications of this sort may have been made by individual sufferers: but it is believed that they have in no instance received the countenance of the American Legation at Paris. It is maintained however, on the part of Spain that a resort in form has been had to the French Government in such cases. Will you make the enquiry and communicate the result? It will not be amiss to know the truth, as it may the more effectually silence the Sophistry of Spain. But should the result justify the assertion on her side, it will not vary the merits of the question. The resort of individuals to the French Government, could not be pretended to have that effect. If made under the voluntary auspices of an American Minister it might have been unknown to or disapproved by the Government here. Nay, if made by order of the Government itself, it would not preclude a just resort to Spain, unless accompanied by a positive or clearly implied discharge of the latter from her responsibility.
It has been thought proper to give you this view of the subject that it may guide the communications thereon which it may be expedient for you at any time to hold with the French Government. I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect & Esteem Your Most Ob Sert.
James Madison

   RC (CStbK); Tr (NHi: Livingston Papers); letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, IM, vol. 6); partial Tr (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Philip D. Sang, Chicago, Ill., 1958); extract (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers); extract (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 9). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by JM. Unless otherwise noted, italicized words and letters are those encoded by a State Department clerk and decoded here by the editors or supplied within square brackets from the letterbook copy (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.). Tr in Brent’s hand; marked copy. Partial Tr is a deciphered version of the encoded sections of the RC. First extract consists of paragraphs 11–22 of the RC; in Brent’s hand; docketed by Monroe.

   Blank left in all copies. Livingston wrote to JM on both 17 and 18 Sept. (ibid., 5:430–32, 444–45).

   Ibid., 5:476–77.

   Circular Letter to American Ministers, 16 Jan. 1804.

   See Claiborne to JM, 27 Dec. 1803 and 2 Jan. 1804, and Claiborne and Wilkinson to JM, 27 Dec. 1803 and 3 Jan. 1804.

   Enclosure not found. On 30 Dec. 1803 the Senate committee to which the Louisiana government question had been referred reported a bill dividing the territory into two parts and providing a government for each. The final version of the bill was passed by the Senate on 18 Feb. 1804 and by the House of Representatives on 17 Mar. 1804 (Annals of CongressDebates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States … (42 vols.; Washington, 1834–56)., 8th Cong., 1st sess., 223, 256, 1199). For the final form of the bill, see U.S. Statutes at LargeThe Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America … (17 vols.; Boston, 1848–73)., 2:283–89.

   For Article 3 of the Louisiana Purchase treaty, which prescribed the incorporation of the inhabitants of Louisiana into the U.S., see Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:501.

   For Laussat’s discussion of the eastern boundary of Louisiana, see Claiborne and Wilkinson to JM, 27 Dec. 1803.

   The word “you” was consistently miscoded “yet.”

   For Barbé-Marbois’s comments on the limits of Louisiana, see Livingston to JM, 20 May 1803 (PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 5:18–20).

   Letterbook copy omits “if it should have changed its ground.”

   Miscoded “mor.” JM may have had in mind the Louisiana Purchase treaty of 30 Apr. 1803, which described the transferred territory as having the same extent it had when France acquired it from Spain by the Treaty of San Ildefonso (Miller, TreatiesHunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (8 vols.; Washington, 1930–48)., 2:499–500).

   See JM to Monroe, 5 Jan. 1804.

   This word was miscoded “pro.”

   In Louis XIV’s 14 Sept. 1712 charter granting financier Antoine Crozat a monopoly on development and trade in the French territories in the Mississippi Valley, Louisiana was described as “bounded by New Mexico, and by the Lands of the English of Carolina,” and including Dauphin Island in Mobile Bay, the Mississippi River “as far as the Illinois,” the Missouri and Wabash Rivers, “with all the Countries, Territories, Lakes within Land, and the Rivers which fall directly or indirectly into that Part” of the Mississippi (Henri Joutel, A Journal of the Last Voyage Perform’d by Monsr. de la Sale, to the Gulph of Mexico, to Find Out the Mouth of the Missisipi River … [London, 1714], pp. 198, 205).

   Miscoded “French govern French.”

   JM referred to the transfer of Crozat’s monopoly to John Law’s Company of the West, which was established in 1717 (Antoin E. Murphy, John Law: Economic Theorist and Policy-Maker [Oxford, 1997], p. 167).

   The State Department clerk mistakenly encoded the numbers “sixty two” and “three” and the words “France” and “Spain” using Monroe’s code (see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:352 n. 1).

   Miscoded “eighteen observe.”

   Underlined in RC.

   The initial proclamation of Haitian independence was issued by Generals Dessalines, Christophe, and Clairveaux on 29 Nov. 1803 (National Intelligencer, 13 Jan. 1804).

   Blank left in RC. For the “Justifying Memorial” of 1779, see Annual Register for 1779, pp. 397–412.

   In a pamphlet issued following the Treaty of Alliance of 1778 and the subsequent outbreak of war between France and Great Britain, the French government argued that even if the Americans were considered not as independent but as citizens of Great Britain, laws forbidding trade between colonists and foreigners could only be enforced within the territory of the sovereign power mandating such laws and not on the high seas or within the territory of another sovereign power, citing as precedent British objections to steps taken by Spanish authorities to restrict British trade with Spanish colonies in America ([Joseph-Mathias Gérard de Rayneval], Observations on the Justificative Memorial of the Court of London [Philadelphia, 1781; EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography … 1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 17093], pp. 102–7).

   For the ratification of the Convention of 1802, see PJM-SSRobert J. Brugger et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison: Secretary of State Series (6 vols. to date; Charlottesville, Va., 1986–)., 4:262 n. 4.

   For Article 2 of the Convention of 1800, see William Vans Murray to JM, 20 May and 9 June 1801 (ibid., 1:205–6 and n. 3, 281, 282 n. 1).


Title: To James Madison from William C. C. Claiborne, 31 January 1804
From: Claiborne, William C. C.
To: Madison, James

Sir,
New Orleans January 31st. 1804
A vessel arrived at this port a few days since with fifty African negroes for sale. Being unwilling to permit so barbarous a traffic, if my powers authorized me to prevent it, I immediately applied to a Mr. Leonard the late Spanish Contádore at this place, a man of great integrity of character for information as to the laws and customs of Spain relating to the African trade, and received from him a letter upon the subject, which is herewith inclosed. Finding from M. Leonard’s communication, that the bringing of African slaves to Louisiana had been permitted by the Spanish authorities, and doubting whether I was vested with power to forbid their sale, the importer has been left to pursue his own wishes.
The vessel from St Domingo which I mentioned in my last, is still at Plaquemines. It seems that the passengers consisted chiefly of sick and wounded soldiers coming from Cape Nicholas mole. We have proposed to accomodate these people at the Garrison of Plaquemines, with as comfortable quarters as are allowed our own troops, but with this Mr. Laussat is much dissatisfied, and insists upon their being brought to New Orleans: I have myself thought that we were bound to extend to these people humane and hospitable attentions; but that the means of doing so, ought to be left to our own discretion. I have also thought that the duty of neutrality made it necessary that we should cause them to depart as soon as their situation will enable them to proceed. With a view therefore to that departure, Plaquemines presented itself as the most proper position for their temporary residence; were they admitted to this City, the soldiers would locate themselves in the country, and the officers would await opportunities to return to France in some neutral vessels. Indulgencies of this kind might be complained of by Great Britain. With regard to their departure, our opinions were formed from the duties of neutrality as defined in Vattel’s laws of nations, and particularly in the 133. Section—Chapter 7. Book 3. But for more particular information on this point, I will refer you to a letter from the Commissioners, which you will receive by the next Post.
I am sorry to inform you that a few of the French officers and citizens who are here continue to evidence a disorderly disposition; they are mortified at the loss of this delightful Province, and seem to foster great hatred to the Americans who are here; among these also there are several warm and imprudent young men, and I can assure you Sir, that it requires much address and prudence to preserve the harmony of the City.
Some unpleasant diplomatic letters have passed between Mr. Laussat and the American Commissioners, upon the disorderly conduct of some of the French officers, which he denies, and charges it to the Americans; copies of these letters will be transmitted to you; I have however reason to hope that no further disturbances will ensue. Every thing is at present perfectly tranquil, and the most perfect good understanding apparently exists between the natives of the United States, and those of Louisiana.
The public Ball room has been the theatre of all the disorders. During the winter season there has, for many years, been a ball twice a week. Every white male person visits it who will pay at the door fifty cents, and the ladies of every rank attend those assemblies in great numbers. The consequence is that the Company generally is composed of a very heterogeneous mass; to keep order at these balls under the Spanish Government a strong guard was stationed at the ball room, and on the first appearance of disorder, the persons concerned were committed.
On my arrival at New Orleans I found the people very solicitous to maintain their public ball establishment, and to convince them that the American Government felt no disposition to break in upon their amusements (as had been reported by some mischievous persons) General Wilkinson and myself occasionally attended these assemblies.
Under the Spanish Government the Governor General was the Regulator of the balls; but this gallant duty I have cheerfully surrendered to the Municipality of the City.
I fear you will suppose that I am wanting in respect in calling your attention to the balls of New Orleans. But I do assure you Sir, that they occupy much of the public mind, and from them have proceeded the greatest embarrassments which have hitherto attended my administration.
The three months allowed by the Treaty for the withdrawing of the French and Spanish forces have expired; but the evacuation has not yet taken place. The public storehouses are still occupied by the French and Spanish authorities.
A part of the Records have been delivered to the American Commissioners, but many important documents yet remain to be received.
I have experienced such repeated interruptions, and my attention in the course of this day has been so frequently called to some local business of the Province, that I cannot write you as fully by this post as I could wish. Accept assurances of my high and respectful consideration.
William C. C. Claiborne
P. S. I enclose you a pamphlet being the vindication of Adjutant General Burthe who has had a serious misunderstanding with Mr. Laussat. It’s perusal perhaps will not be uninteresting to you.

   RC, two copies, and enclosure (DNA: RG 59, TP, Orleans, vol. 3); letterbook copy (Ms-Ar: Claiborne Executive Journal, vol. 13); extract and Tr of enclosure (DNA: RG 46, President’s Messages, 8A-E2); extract and Tr of enclosure (DNA: RG 233, President’s Messages, 8A-D1). First RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Claiborne; docketed by Wagner as received 6 Mar. Second RC marked duplicate. For surviving enclosure, see n. 1.

   The enclosure is Gilbert Leonard to Claiborne, 25 Jan. 1804 (4 pp.; docketed by Wagner; printed in Carter, Territorial Papers, Orleans, 9:172–73), explaining that the 24 Jan. 1793 decree of Charles IV permitting the importation of slaves had been promulgated by then-intendant Ramón López y Angulo on 29 Nov. 1800. Leonard added that between the retrocession to France and the arrival of the authorities, three French ships carrying a total of 463 Africans, all consigned to John Francis Merieult, had arrived. He suggested that if the policy was to be changed under U.S. governance, the change should be announced early enough to allow the completion of projected expeditions.

   In the cited section Vattel states that while a neutral country may out of charity allow injured belligerents to pass through its territory, if they are suffered to remain, other belligerents have the right to enter the country in pursuit of them (Vattel, Law of Nations [1796 ed.], p. 413).

   Enclosure not found, but no doubt it was a copy of André Burthe d’Annelet’s pamphlet Burthe, contre Laussat (New Orleans, 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). 5962), defending his position in the disagreement between the two French officials. For Laussat’s version of the quarrel, see Laussat, Memoirs of My Life, pp. 42–47.


Title: From James Madison to Jeremiah Townsend and Others, 31 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Townsend, Jeremiah

31 January 1804, Department of State. “I have received your letter of the 10th. inst. [not found]. Should you be able to trace with certainty the perpetrators of the robbery, your rights may be enforced against them by adopting the proper legal proceedings, but the Government of the United States having no agent at Guadaloupe, have it not in their power to aid you in the investigation.
“That the acts committed by Privateersmen as they affect the general security of the seas may be placed in the view of the French Government, copies of your documents will be transmitted to their Chargé D’Affaires here with such reflections as are suggested by the circumstances.”

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


Title: From James Madison to Carlos Martínez de Yrujo, 31 January 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Yrujo, Carlos Martínez de

31 January 1804, Department of State. “The enclosed original documents (which I pray you to return) with Mr. Cooks last letter to me will make you in some degree acquainted with his complaint, and point out the Court from whose decision he expects redress. There is beside in this office a certified transcript of the previous proceedings in his case, with which, being volum[i]nous I have not troubled you, but if it would be agreeable to you to see it, I will have the honor to inclose it to you.”

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


Title: To James Madison from Alexander Baring, 1 February 1804
From: Baring, Alexander
To: Madison, James

Sir.
New York 1st. febry. 1804.
I received with the letter you honored me with of the  one for Mr. Munroe as also a parcel from the collector here and beg you will be assured of my particular attention to their carefull delivery. I have determined after some hesitation to take my passage in the packet as there are no good American vessels at present ready for Europe, we are now only waiting for Mr. Merry’s dispatches which I presume will arrive in time for us to sail on Saturday or Sunday and the Season of the year allows us to expect an expeditious though not a pleasant passage.
Permit me to offer my respectfull compliments to Mrs Maddison with my warmest thanks for the attentions you honored me with during my residence at Washington. Should I in any parts of the world be fortunate enough to make my services acceptable I beg you will command them without reserve and believe me with great respect & esteem. Sir Your very obedient Servant.
Alexr Baring.
PS. A very interesting pamphlet has been lent me here for perusal by Mr King entitled “Cursory remarks on the State of parties during the Administration of Mr Addington” it is said to be written by Mr Bragge the Secretary at War—contains some curious confessions & I think very good reflections on the State of parties in England. The writer makes a violent attack on the Grenville & Wyndham party and a partial but more guarded one on Mr Pitt, to separate whom from the former appears his principal object. This publication has probably reached you or shortly will and I think you will not regret the time thrown away on its perusal.

   RC (NHi).

   Blank left in RC. No letter from JM to Baring dated in January 1804 has been found, but see n. 2, below.

   See JM to Monroe, 18 Jan. 1804.

   Baring referred to Thomas Richard Bentley’s A Few Cursory Remarks upon the State of Parties, during the Administration of the Right Honourable Henry Addington (London, 1803). In August 1803 Addington’s brother-in-law Charles Bragge, later known as Charles Bathurst, had replaced Charles Yorke as secretary for war (Thorne, History of Parliament, 3:242, 243).


Title: From James Madison to Anthony Merry, 1 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Madison, James
To: Merry, Anthony

1 February 1804, Department of State. “I beg leave to trouble you with the enclosed documents concerning Benjamin Stedham and Andrew Malony, who appear to have been impressed into the British Service, the first into the Isis, and the latter into the Boston Frigate, from American Vessels on the American coast, where it is supposed the frigates still are. In doing this I must ask the favor of your good offices to procure the discharge of the men in question whose Citizenship is fully proved by the documents alluded to.”

   Letterbook copy (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14). 1 p. Merry acknowledged receipt of JM’s letter on 3 Feb. 1804, stating that he would forward the documents to the commander in chief of the British ships stationed on the U.S. coast and notify him of JM’s request for the men’s release (DNA: RG 59, NFL, Great Britain, vol. 3).


Title: To James Madison from Robert R. Livingston, 2 February 1804
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Madison, James

No 98
Sir
Paris 2d feby 1804
I mentioned to you in one of my former letters that so soon as I learned from Mr Pichon (your letters not having arrived till Some time after) the opposition that the Spanish Envoy had given to the Treaty, I wrote to the Minister, & afterwards I called upon him & entered into a full discussion of the Subject. That he candidly Shewed me Mr. Pichon’s letter, & assured me the discontents of Spain had never been mentioned to him before, & gave me his Solemn promise that the First Consul would immediately after the most Serious remonstrances on the Subject at Madrid. I also informed you that by a letter from Mr Graham of 5th January, I received the note of Mr Cevallos dated 31st December keeping up the Same pretensions. In this letter Mr Graham tells me that in a few days the Prince of Peace was expected, & that Mr Pinkney was preparing a remonstrance &c. I send you a Copy of the note I put in in consequence of the receipt of this letter. Happily however this was unnecessary, my first remonstrance with the Minister having all the effect we could wish. The enclosed notes put all questions relative to the acquiescence of Spain in our Treaty out of doubt. I hope they will appear Satisfactory to the President, & enable you to Strike away one of the crutches upon which the enemies of the administration have limped for Some time past. I Shall Send you the originals, as they are important papers by the first Safe conveyance after having lodged official Copies under the Seal of the Commercial agent in his chancery for greater Security.

You will be convinced from this transaction that I did not hazard much, when I told you that no intrigues had been Set on foot as you Supposed here by the Court of Spain to defeat the Treaty, & of course that the channel thro’ which you received that advice is one that you can not rely upon for information from this quarter—it will Shew you also the necessity of directing a more frequent & confidential correspondence between your Ministers, Since there is no doubt that I could with as much facility have Stopped this business at the outset, had I been informed by Mr Pinkney of the discontents of the Court of Spain, as I have done Since, & that in endeavouring to transfer the seat of the negotiation for East Florida to Paris, which I Should probably have effected had Mr Monroe approved I Should have facilitated the execution of a Treaty for its acquisition. You will remark as a very Singular trait of the ill grace with which Spain has been forced into this measure the ignorance in which her Ministers left Mr Pinkney of it on the 5th of January the date of Mr Grahams letter, tho’ they had actually yielded to the remonstrance of the French Ambassador on the first: Any other Court would have made a merit of the transaction with the United States rather than have appeared to yield it to force but it unfortunately happens that even politicians are Sometimes more influenced by their passions than by their judgements. Mr Talleyrand having been very ill, has made some delay in transmitting me the note. I informed you of the letter of Commodore Prebble requesting me to notify this Court & the foreign Ministers of the Blockade of Tripoli, & of the reasons which prevented my doing it, which are justified by the enclosed note of Mr Talleyrand complaining, & as I fear, Justly of the measure. But I know not how far your Sentiments concur with mine on this Subject or what instructions have been given to Commodore Preble. I find myself at a loss for the answer I am to give. I Shall however dwell in generals, So as not to commit myself in case you Should think the Blockade Justifiable—if I can finish them in time you will receive my answers to these notes with this letter, But I think it important that you Should have this as Soon as possible. I will not delay it if they Should not be finished, but Send them by the next conveyance.
I have no particular information of moment unless it be a Singular circumstance that happened a few days ago in the assembly of Tribunes, a law was sent down for the revocation of grants of Forest lands, & antient domains upon the payment of a certain Stipulation. No person rose to Speak against the bill, but when the vote was taken it was voted out by a large majority—this threw the house into the utmost confusion, & left upon the mind two very unpleasant [im]pression the first was that a certain degree of dissatisfaction prevailed and that the freedom of spea[ch] was so perfectly lost that no member who disapproved dared to express his disapprobation nor was it possible to fix upon the orator⟨s⟩ to be Sent down to oppose the law in the Corps Legislative for the Sentiments of none were known, nor did any chuse to have their Sentiments known. The doors were closed, & after much debate the orators were chosen by lot.
The expence & gayety of this Winter exceeds every thing that has been known even in Paris, & what is worst, as this gayety is in the Court circle, I am compelled to partake of it, or to appear a mecontent. Not a night passes without a ball & on many nights, you are expected to Shew yourself at least at two, after having previously paid your visit to one of the family of the First Consul, who have their respective nights or to one of the other Consuls who keep three public nights in a week, or to one of the Ministers three of whom keep nights & the war makes So much little business relative to individuals, that you can only treat verbally & en passant, that you are compelled to See them as often as opportunity offers. I have the honor to be Sir With the most Sincere & respectful attachment Your most Obt hum: Servt
Robt R Livingston

   RC and enclosures (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: “recd. 2 June / Com. Preble’s blockade.” 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.). For enclosures, see nn. 4, 5, and 8.

   Livingston to JM, 26 Dec. 1803.

   Draft and letterbook copy have “offer.”

   See Livingston to JM, 18 Jan. 1804, and n. 6.

   Draft and letterbook copy have “sent.” Livingston enclosed copies of his 17 Jan. 1804 note to Talleyrand (4 pp.) and Cevallos to Pinckney, 31 Dec. 1803 (1 p.; in Spanish) (see Livingston to JM, 18 Jan. 1804, and n. 6).

   Livingston enclosed a copy of Talleyrand to Livingston, 12 Pluviôse an XII (2 Feb. 1804) (2 pp.; in French; docketed by Wagner as received in Livingston’s no. 98), stating that in response to a note from the French ambassador at Madrid inquiring about Yrujo’s complaints, the Spanish government had declared that it supported unreservedly France’s cession of Louisiana to the U.S. Talleyrand’s letter enclosed a copy (2 pp.; in French) of a 22 Jan. 1804 letter to Talleyrand from José Martínez Hervas, the Spanish chargé d’affaires at Paris, stating that he had received orders dated 1 Jan. 1804 to express support for the cession and noting that Cevallos had written to Pinckney on 31 Dec. 1803.

   See Livingston to JM, 26 Dec. 1803.

   See Livingston to JM, 11 Dec. 1803.

   Livingston enclosed a copy of Talleyrand to Livingston, 10 Pluviôse an XII (31 Jan. 1804) (3 pp.; in French; docketed by Wagner as received in Livingston’s no. 98; translation 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)., 3:372), objecting to Preble’s announced blockade of the port of Tripoli and the adjacent coast on the grounds that one frigate did not constitute sufficient force to impose a blockade and that including the coast in the blockade would violate the rights of neutrals in a manner that recalled the example set by the British.

   For newspaper reports on this incident, see the Moniteur universel, 9–12 Pluviôse an XII (30 Jan.–2 Feb. 1804).


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, 2 February 1804
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
London Feby 2. 1804.
Since my last nothing interesting has taken place in any view on this side of the atlantick. I have been told that my note was referrd to the admiralty, from whom a report had not been recd wh. was the cause of delay in the answer; that the delay in the admiralty was in part owing to some changes in it, Sr. Evan Nepean being removed to Ireland in character of chief secry. to the Ld. Lieutenant. The letter of reference of my note by Ld. Hawkesbury to the admiralty was shewn me, wh. was addressed in suitable terms. I have reason to expect it will be answered shortly & in a friendly manner. No change has taken place in the state of the war. In an exposition of the state of France given by the first consul, to the legislative body, mention is made of the cession of Louisiana to the UStates, not precisely in terms that we might wish, since in connecting it with the aid given in our revolution by France it allows too little to the merit of our own exertions. That however shod. never be a topick of discussion between us. I consider the view taken of the motives wh. induc’d the first consul to make the cession, by the President, as being sound in fact & equally so in policy. I see that the criticism wh. was made on it, in the courier wh. I sent you, is inserted in the moniteur. I hope daily to hear from you, that every thing is concluded relative to the possession of Louisiana as it shod. be; and also to receive yr. final instructions respecting Spain. I presume Mr. Baring will bring yr. dispatches. I hear with great regret that the Phila. ran on shore in pursuit of a Tripoline vessel & was taken with the whole crew, amounting to above 320. men & several officers. I fear it is true. Be so good as forward the enclosed, so that they will be sure to be delivered. Very sincerely I am yr. friend
Jas. Monroe.

   RC (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers).

   Monroe’s last official dispatch is dated 9 Jan. 1804.

   See Monroe to JM, 9 Jan. 1804, and n. 2.

   The 30 Jan. 1804 London Times article on Napoleon’s 16 Jan. report to the French legislature quotes him as saying, “The United States are indebted to France for their independence; they will henceforth owe to us their strength and grandeur.”

   For the editorial comment from the London Courier and Evening Gazette on Jefferson’s 17 Oct. 1803 message to Congress that was reprinted in the Moniteur universel of 29 Frimaire an XII (21 Dec. 1803), see Monroe to JM, 14 Dec. 1803, and n. 2.


Title: To James Madison from Sylvanus Bourne, 2 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Bourne, Sylvanus
To: Madison, James

2 February 1804, Amsterdam. Encloses the Leiden Gazette for January. Has nothing to add as political affairs have remained unchanged. “There are persons who flatter themselves with the probability of a renewed peace e’er long: but for my own part I am unable to perceive any basis on which it can at present be formed consistent with the reciprocal views of the contending Powers—& I am even led to believe that Europe is yet destined for many years to be the prey of those conflicting passions & interests which have been set afloat by the french revolution.
“The late report of Congress on the Subject of Louisiana & the Floridas appears to have excited no small degree of attention here & eve⟨n⟩ of comment as betraying symptoms of undue ambition in our Country: While others who are capable of duly appretiating every circumstance connected with this subject see only in this report a candid exposition of that policy which the honor & interest of the U. Stat⟨es⟩ preeminently dictate.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, CD, Amsterdam, vol. 1). 2 pp.; misdated 1803 by Bourne. Date assigned here on the basis of internal evidence.

   See Tench Coxe to JM, 6 Nov. 1803, n. 2.


Title: To James Madison from Gabriel Duvall, 2 February 1804 (Abstract)
From: Duvall, Gabriel
To: Madison, James

2 February 1804, Treasury Department, Comptroller’s Office. Encloses a letter of 30 Jan. 1804 from [Allen McLane], “the Collector of the Customs for the District of Delaware, and the accompt of Captain Brinton, therein mentioned, containing charges for the passages of two distressed American Seamen.”
“As this claim cannot be adjusted, until the evidence mentioned by the Auditor in his note at foot of the accompt, be furnished, I have to request that you will be pleased to take measures for having it supplied; and it may be well at the same time to caution the Collector in the manner suggested by the Auditor.”

   RC (DNA: RG 59, ML). 1 p.; in a clerk’s hand, signed by Duvall; docketed by Wagner. Enclosures not found.

   On 7 Feb. 1804 JM replied: “Not possessing any proof of the landing in the United States of the men mentioned in the enclosed documents, I have the honor to return them to you and take the liberty of suggesting that it is incumbent on the party applying for payment to support the claim by proper vouchers of his own procuring. If the Collector has paid the Bill without authority, the refusal to reimburse him, but upon the same terms as the original claimant, will operate as a caution against similar payments in future” (DNA: RG 59, DL, vol. 14; 1 p.).