Home

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

to rufus king

January, 1796.

My Dear Sir:

If the newspapers tell truth, it would appear that Massachusetts has anticipated New York. But it is intended by our friends in the Legislature to give some pointed discountenance to the propositions. It was expected that it would have been done to-day, but by the divergings of some men who seek popularity with both sides, they have gotten into an unnecessary debate upon the proposition in detail, which will lose time; but in the result a handsome majority will do right.

Lawrence is hurt, and as far as I see, not without some reason, from particular circumstances, at being left out of the direction of the bank. It will be balm to his feelings to be put into the direction of the office here, and I believe it will be an improvement of the direction to do it. I wish you would endeavor to bring it about. Speak to Bayard of our city and to Wharton of Philadelphia. This is a suggestion of my own, for Lawrence rather rides a high horse upon the occasion. Yours truly.

to washington

Jan. 19, 1796.

Sir:

The bearer of this letter is Doctor Bollman,1 whom you have heard of as having made an attempt for the relief of the Marquis La Fayette, which very nearly succeeded. The circumstances of this affair, as stated by Doctor Bollman and Mr. Huger,2 son of B. Huger, of South Carolina, deceased, who assisted, do real credit to the prudence, management, and enterprise of the doctor, and show that he is a man of sense and energy.

He appears to have been induced to think that he attempted a service which would strongly recommend him to the favor of this country, in which idea I have reason to believe that Mr. Pinckney, among others, encouraged him, and, as a consequence of it, he hopes for some civil employment under our government. His expectations of what he may begin with are not high, it being principally his object to obtain some present provision in a way which may lead him, if he discovers talents, to some thing better. He appears to be a man of education, speaks several languages, converses sensibly, is of polite manners, and, I dare say, has the materials of future advancement.

I have not left him unapprised of the difficulties in his way, but he concludes to go to Philadelphia to ascertain what is, or is not possible, relying at least on a kind reception from you.

He brought me letters from Mr. and Mrs. Church, which speak handsomely of him. I believe they had a chief agency in promoting his undertaking.

P. S.—The doctor is a German.

to washington

New York,

Feb. 25, 1796.

Sir:

The evening I had last the pleasure of seeing you, you asked my opinion whether any and what measures might be taken with the Senate with reference to the treaty with Great Britain, in the event of its not arriving before the adjournment of the Legislature.

I mentioned as a hasty thought, that I feared it would be impossible to detain them long in expectation of a treaty not arrived, but that it might be advisable, immediately after the adjournment, to notify another meeting, as little distant as might be compatible with reasonable time of notice.

On reflection this opinion appears to me not to be well founded as to the last point. I fear the first part will be found true, and that the body would not upon casualty remain many days together after the expiration of the session.

In place of the course which I at first mentioned I submit the following:

“That the Secretary of State write a letter to each member present and absent, announcing the expectation of the treaty, and that, when arrived, the Senate will be convened by a proclamation for a time not exceeding six weeks.”

The letter of the Secretary of State to be sent by land, and by water also, to the most remote members, and when the proclamation for convening the Senate issues, the same be done, upon special expresses for the land conveyance, and having ready some swift-sailing vessel for the water conveyance.

With these precautions, I think six weeks’ notice will be enough.

The President cannot specially convene the Senate without announcing that an extraordinary occasion exists. He had, when I left Philadelphia, no such advice of the treaty as would warrant the assertion, and even if he had, until it arrives there is a possibility of a miscarriage, which might prevent his having it ready to lay before the Senate at the time of meeting, if they should be convened upon contingency. These reflections have led to the change of opinion.

to oliver wolcott

March, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are two letters which I will thank you to send on. I have just seen Livingston’s motion concerning instructions,1 etc. My first impression is that the propriety of a compliance with the call, if made, is extremely doubtful. But much careful thought on the subject is requisite.

P. S.—I send you also a letter from Mrs. Church to Mr. Beaumete, which I will thank you to send to Mr. Talleyrand.2

to washington

New York,

March 7, 1796.

Sir:

I found young La Fayette here, and delivered him your letter, which much relieved him. I fancy you will see him on the first day of April.

Mr. Livingston’s motion in the House of Representatives concerning the production of papers, has attracted much attention. The opinion here of those who think, is that if the motion succeeds, it ought not to be complied with. Besides, that in a matter of such a nature the production of the papers cannot fail to start new and unpleasant game. It will be fatal to the negotiating power of the government if it is to be a matter of course for a call of either House of Congress to bring forth all the communications, however confidential.

It seems to me that some thing like the following answer by the President will be advisable:

“A right in the House of Representatives to demand and have, as a matter of course, and without specification of any object, all communications respecting negotiations with a foreign power, cannot be admitted without danger of much inconvenience. A discretion in the executive department how far and when to comply in such cases is essential to the due conduct of foreign negotiations and is essential to preserve the limits between the legislative and executive departments. The present call is altogether indefinite, and without any declared purpose. The Executive has no basis on which to judge of the propriety of a compliance with it, and cannot, therefore, without forming a very dangerous precedent, comply.

It does not occur that the view of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose of the competency of the House of Representatives but that of an impeachment. In every case of a foreign treaty, the grounds for an impeachment must primarily be deduced from the nature of the instrument itself, and from nothing extrinsic. If at any time a treaty should present such grounds, and it shall have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives and a further inquiry shall be necessary to ascertain the culpable person, there being then a declared and ascertained object, the President would attend with due respect to any application for necessary information.”

This is but a hasty and crude outline of what has struck me as an eligible course. For, while a too easy compliance will be mischievous, a too peremptory and unqualified refusal might be liable to just criticism.

to william smith1

March 10, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I observe Madison brings the power of the House of Representatives in the case of the treaty into question. Is the agency of the House of Representatives on the subject deliberative or executive? On the sophism that the Legislature, and each branch of it, is essentially deliberative, and consequently must have discretion, will he, I presume, maintain the freedom of the House to concur or not.

But the sophism is easily refuted. The Legislature, and each branch of it, is deliberative, but with various restrictions; not with unlimited discretion. All the injunctions and restrictions of the Constitution, for instance, abridge its deliberative faculty, and leave it quoad hoc, merely executive. Thus the constitution enjoins that there shall be a fixed allowance for the judges, which shall not be diminished. The Legislature cannot, therefore, deliberate whether they will make a permanent provision, and when the allowance is fixed, they cannot deliberate whether they will appropriate and pay the money. So far their deliberative faculty is abridged. The mode of raising and appropriating the money only remains matter of deliberation.

So, likewise, the constitution says that the President and Senate shall make treaties, and that these treaties shall be supreme laws. It is a contradiction to call a thing a law which is not binding. It follows that by constitutional injunction the House of Representatives quoad the stipulations of treaties, as in the case cited, respecting the judges, are not deliberative, but merely executive, except as to the means of executing.

Any other doctrine would vest the Legislature and each House with unlimited discretion, and destroy the very idea of a constitution limiting its discretion. The constitution would at once vanish.

Besides, the legal power to refuse the execution of a law is a power to repeal it. Thus, the House of Representatives must, as to treaties, concentre in itself the whole legislative power, and undertake, without the Senate, to repeal a law. For the law is complete by the action of the President and Senate.

Again. A treaty, which is a contract between nation and nation, abridges even the legislative discretion of the whole Legislature by the moral obligation of keeping its faith; a fortiori, that of one branch. In theory, there is no method by which the obligations of a treaty can be annulled but by mutual consent of the contracting parties, by ill-faith in one of them, or by a revolution of government, which is of a nature so to change the condition of parties as to render the treaty inapplicable.

to rufus king

New York,

March 16, 1796.

My Dear Sir:

I thank you for your letter of the ——. My opinion on the resolution when it first appeared was that the President should answer in substance as follows, viz.:

“That it could not be admitted as a right of course in the House of Representatives to call for and have papers in the Executive department, especially those relating to foreign negotiations, which frequently embrace confidential matters. That, under all the circumstances, upon so indefinite a call, without any declared specific object, he did not think it proper nor consistent with what he owed to a due separation of the respective powers to comply with the call. That if, in the course of the proceedings of the House, a question of their competency should arise, for which any of the papers in question might be necessary, an application made on that ground would be considered with proper respect,” etc.

But after what has taken place in the discussion, if it can with propriety be got in as to form, I think a stand ought to be made by the President against the usurpation. The following propositions comprise an obvious ground.

I—The Constitution empowers the President, with the Senate, to make treaties.
II—A treaty is a perfected compact between two nations, obligatory on both.
III—That cannot be a perfect contract or treaty to the validity of which the concurrence of any other power in the State is constitutionally necessary. Again:
IV—The Constitution says a treaty is a law.
V—A law is an obligatory rule of action prescribed by the competent authority. But—
VI—That cannot be such a rule of action, or law, to the validity of which the assent of any other person is requisite. Again:
VII—The object of the legislative power is to prescribe a rule of action for our own nation, which includes foreigners coming among us.
VIII—The object of the treaty power is, by agreement, to settle a rule of action between two nations, binding on both.
IX—These objects are essentially different and, in a constitutional sense, cannot interfere.
X—The treaty power binding the will of the nation, must, within its constitutional limits, be paramount to the legislative power, which is that will; or, at least, the last law being a treaty must repeal an antecedent contrary law. And,
XI—If the legislative power is competent to repeal this law by a subsequent law, this must be the whole legislative power, by a solemn act in the forms of the Constitution, not one branch of the legislative power by disobeying the law.
XII—The foregoing construction reconciles the two powers, and assigns them distinguishable spheres of action; while
XIII—The other construction, that claiming that a right of assent is a sanction for the House of Representatives, destroys the treaty, making powerless. and negative two propositions in the Constitution, to wit: 1. That the President, with the Senate, is competent to make treaties. 2. That a treaty is a law.

On these grounds, with the President’s name a bulwark not to be shaken is erected. The propositions, in my opinion, amount to irresistible demonstration.

to washington

New York,

March 24, 1796.

Sir:

I had the honor to receive yesterday your letter of the 22d. The course you suggest has some obvious advantages, and merits careful consideration. I am not, however, without fear that there are things in the instructions to Mr. Jay—which good policy, considering the matter externally as well as internally, would render it inexpedient to communicate. This I shall ascertain to-day. A middle course is under consideration—that of not communicating the papers to the House, but of declaring that the Secretary of State is directed to permit them to be read by the members individually. But this is liable to a great part of the objections which militate against a full public disclosure. I throw it out, however, here, that you may be thinking of it, if it has not before occurred. In the course of this day, I shall endeavor to concentre my ideas, and prepare some thing, the premises of which may be in any event proper, admitting of the conclusion being modified and adapted to your eventual determination.

to washington

March 26, 1796.

Sir:

I perceive by the newspaper that the resolution has been carried. I have not been idle as far as my situation would permit, but it will not be in my power, as I had hoped, to send you what I am preparing by this day’s post; the next will carry it. It does not, however, appear necessary that the Executive should be in a hurry.

The final result, in my mind, for reasons I shall submit in my next, is that the papers ought all to be refused. I am persuaded that the communication of the instructions in particular would do harm to the President and to the government.

to washington

March 28, 1796.

Sir:

I am mortified at not being able to send you by this post a certain draft. But the opinion that reasons ought to be given, and pretty fairly, has extended it to considerable length and a desire to make it accurate as to idea and expression keeps it still upon the anvil. But it is so far prepared that I can assure it by to-morrow’s post. Delay is always unpleasant. But the case is delicate and important enough to justify it.

I mentioned as my opinion, that the instructions to Mr. Jay, if published, would do harm. The truth, unfortunately, is that it is in general a crude mass, which will do no credit to the administration. This was my impression of it at the time, but the delicacy of attempting too much reformation in the work of another head of department, the hurry of the moment, and a great confidence in the person to be sent, prevented my attempting that reformation.

There are several particular points in it which would have a very ill effect to be published.

I—There is a part which seems to admit the idea that an adjustment might be made respecting the spoliations which should leave that matter finally to the ordinary course of the British courts. This is obscurely and ambiguously expressed, but the least color for such a construction would give occasion for infinite clamor.
II—The negotiator is expressly instructed to accede to the entire abolition of alienism as to inheritances of land. You have seen what clamor has been made about the moderate modification of this idea in the treaty, and can thence judge what a load would fall on this part of the instructions.
III—He is instructed to enter into an article against the employment of privateers in war. This is manifestly against the policy of a country which has no navy in a treaty with a country which has a large navy. For it is chiefly by privateers that we could annoy the trade of Great Britain. Some would consider this as a philosophic whim; others as an intentional sacrifice of the interests of this country to Great Britain.
IV—There are several parts which hold up the disreputable and disorganizing idea of not being able to restrain our own citizens.
V—There are parts the publication of which, though proper to our own agent, would be a violation of decorum towards Great Britain, after an amicable termination of the affair, and offensive because contrary to the rules of friendly and respectful procedure.
VI—The instructions have too little point (in the spirit of the framer, who was in the habit of saying much and saying little), and would be censured as altogether deficient in firmness and spirit.

On the whole, I have no doubt that the publication of these instructions would do harm to the Executive, and to the character and interest of the government.

The draft will be so prepared as to admit of this conclusion.

If the President concludes to send papers, they ought only to be the commissions, and Mr. Jay’s correspondence, saying that these are all that it appears to him for the public interest to send.

But he may be then prepared for as much clamor as if he had sent none. It would be said that what was done showed that the principle had not been the obstacle—and that the instructions were withheld because they would not bear the light. Or, at most, only that part of the instructions should go which begins at these words, “4. This enumeration presents, generally, the objects which it is desirable to comprise in a commercial treaty,” etc., to the end of the instructions.

But after the fullest reflection I have been able to give the subject (though I perceive serious degrees of inconveniencies in the course), I entertain a final opinion that it will be best, after the usurpation attempted by the House of Representatives, to send none, and to resist in totality.

to washington

March 29, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I wish the enclosed1 could have been sent in a more perfect state. But it was impossible. I hope, however, it can be made out and may be useful. It required some time to say all that was proper in a more condensed form. In considering the course to be pursued by the President, it may be well he should be reminded, that the same description of men who call for the papers have heretofore maintained, that they were not bound by any communication in confidence, but were free afterwards to do as they pleased with papers sent them.2

to washington

New York,

April 2, 1796.

Sir:

The express is this morning gone off with your letter to young La Fayette. I foresaw when in Philadelphia a certain machination on the subject.

I rejoice at the decision you have come to in regard to the papers. Whatever may happen, it is right in itself, will elevate the character of the President, and inspire confidence abroad. The contrary would have encouraged a spirit of usurpation, the bounds of which could not be foreseen.

If there is time, I should like to have back the paper lately sent to correct, prune, guard, and strengthen—I have no copy. But of the expediency of this the circumstances on the spot will decide. There is great fitness in the message to the House. I see only one point the least vulnerable, the too direct notice of the debate in the House—which may be attacked as contrary to parliamentary usage. I hear the criticism here among the L——s.1 But this cannot be very material.

to rufus king

April 2, 1796.

Thank you for yours of yesterday. I have no copy of the paper sent: the greatest part went in the original draft, though considerably reformed according to joint ideas, and somewhat strengthened by new thoughts. A letter I have received tells me that it came to hand after the ground which was acted upon had been formally considered and taken in council, and that it is referred for future use in the event of an expected criticism of the message.

I have asked for it conditionally, to prune, correct, etc. If I get it you shall have a copy. But you must take care that there is no crossing of paths.

to washington

New York,

April 9, 1796.

Sir:

It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of announcing to you one whom I know to be interesting to you as a bearer of this—Mr. Motier La Fayette. I allow myself to share, by anticipation, the satisfaction which the meeting will afford to all parties—the more, as I am persuaded, that time will confirm the favorable representation I have made of the person, and justify the interest you take in him.

I have pleasure, also, in presenting to you Mr. Frestel, who accompanies him, and who more and more convinces me that he is entirely worthy of the charge reposed in him, and every way entitled to esteem.

to rufus king

New York,

April 15, 1796.

My Dear Sir:

A letter by yesterday’s post from our friend Ames,1 informed me that the majority (fifty-seven concuring) had resolved in a private meeting to refuse appropriation for the treaty. A most important crisis ensues. Great evils may result, unless good men play their card well and with promptitude and decision. For we must seize and carry along with us the public opinion, and loss of time may be loss of every thing.

To me our true plan appears to be the following (I pre-suppose that a certain communication has been made):

1st. The President ought, immediately after the House has taken the ground of refusal, to send them a solemn protest. This protest ought to contain reasons in detail against the claim of the House in point of constitutional right, and ought to suggest summarily, but with solemnity and energy, the danger to the interest and peace of the country from the measures of the House, the certainty of a deep wound to our character with foreign nations, and essential destruction of their confidence in the government, concluding with an intimation that in such a state of things he must experience extreme embarrassment in proceeding in any pending or future negotiations which the affairs of the United States may require, inasmuch as he cannot look for due confidence from others, nor give them the requisite expectation that stipulations will be fulfilled on our part.

A copy of this protest to be sent to the Senate for their information. The Senate, by resolutions to express strongly their approbation of his principles, to assure him of their firm support, and to advise him to proceed in the execution of the treaty on his part in the confidence that he will derive from the virtue and good sense of the people, constitutionally exerted, eventual and effectual support, and may still be the instrument of preserving the Constitution, the peace, and the honor of the nation.

Then the merchants to meet in the city, and second by their resolutions the measures of the President and Senate, further addressing their fellow-citizens to co-operate with them. Petitions afterwards to be handed throughout the United States.

The Senate to hold fast, and consent to no adjournment till the expiration of the term of service of the present House, unless provision made.

The President to cause a confidential communication to be made to the British minister, stating candidly what has happened, his regrets, his adherence nevertheless to the treaty, his resolution to persist in the execution, as far as depends on the Executive, and his hope that the faith of the country will be eventually preserved.

I prefer that measures should begin with a protest of the President, as it will be in itself proper, and there will be more chance of success if the contest appears to be with him and the Senate auxiliaries than in the reverse.

But in all this business, celerity, decision, and an imposing attitude are indispensable. The glory of the President, the safety of the Constitution—the greatest interests—depend upon it. Nothing will be wanting here. I do not write to the President on the subject.

An idea has come from Cooper of an intention in our friends in the House of Representatives to resist the execution of the other treaties—the Spanish and Algerine—unless coupled with the British. But this will be altogether wrong and impolitic. The misconduct of the other party cannot justify in us an imitation of their principles. ’T is best, I think, that the first course should be given to the other treaties. Or at most, if a feint of opposition is deemed advisable, it ought to be left to the Senate by postponement, etc. But even this is very delicate and very questionable.

Let us be right, because to do right is intrinsically proper, and I verily believe it is the best means of securing final success. Let our adversaries have the whole glory of sacrificing the interests of the nation.

P. S.—If the treaty is not executed, the President will be called upon, by regard to his character and the public good, to keep his post till another House of Representatives has pronounced.

to rufus king

New York,

April 18, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I thank you for your letter received to-day. Our merchants here are not less alarmed than those of Philadelphia, and will do all they can. All the insurance people meet to-day. The merchants and traders will meet to-morrow or the next day. A petition will be prepared and circulated among the other citizens.

I regret that a certain communication was not made. Indeed, I think that the Executive will be hereafter blamed for keeping back the fact in so critical a posture of things.

to rufus king

April 20, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Yesterday’s post brought me a letter from you, which gave me pleasure. The papers will apprise you of the proceedings of the merchants and traders here on yesterday. There is among them, also, “unexampled unanimity,” and, as far as I can judge, the current is in our favor throughout the city. Persons to-day are going through the different wards.

P.S.—Our friends in the House will do well to gain time.

to oliver wolcott

New York,

April 20, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have received your letter of the eighteenth instant. The money paid me for you shall be placed to your credit in the office of discount and deposit, as you desire.

The British ministry are as great fools or as great rascals as our Jacobins, else our commerce would not continue to be distressed as it is by their cruisers; nor would the Executive be embarrassed as it now is by the new proposition.

Not knowing the precise form of that proposition, I cannot have an opinion what is right on the part of the Executive. But, if I understand it, it ought to be sufficient for the Executive to declare that the article in the treaty with the Indians can never operate, nor will be permitted to operate, in contravention with the treaty of Great Britain. It relates to a right reserved for our benefit, which we can and will waive; and, being in a treaty of subsequent date, it naturally gives way to another of prior date, with which it is consistent. The Executive ought to be careful about admitting the propriety of a new condition, though it ought to be ready to give all due satisfaction. It should not even shun a new explanatory article, if reasonable in itself, but should agree to it upon the strength of its own reasonableness, not as a new condition foreign to the treaty. This affair requires great caution; but, as I said, I do not know enough to give advice worth much.

Yet the government must take care not to appear pusillanimous. I hope a very serious remonstrance has long since gone against the wanton impressment of our seamen. It will be an error to be too tame with this overbearing Cabinet.

Our city is in motion against the plan of the majority in the House of Representatives with regard to the treaty. The current appears to be strong with us. The papers will tell you the measures in contemplation.

But I was sorry to learn that a proper qualified communication was made to the House of Representatives of the late communication from the British agent. The Executive may hereafter be blamed for withholding so important a fact; yet, not knowing the whole affair, I cannot judge well on this point more than on the other.

to rufus king

April 23, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have received your two letters, and shall this day attend to the one which requires it. I see, however, no objecwion to it as it stands, and I do not now perceive how the further object you aim at could be accomplished in the manner you seem to desire.

I have written to Ames this day concerning the course of things in our city. He will communicate to you, as I have not time to repeat. We are decidedly well. But it is intended to-day to continue the petition in circulation, and to-morrow it will be sent. I have thought it advisable to publish an extract from your letter without naming you.

to rufus king

May 4, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Since my last I have received two or three letters from you. The late turn of the treaty question makes us all very happy. I hope no future embarrassment will arise.

I am entirely of opinion that, Patrick Henry declining, Mr. Pinckney1 ought to be our man. It is even an idea of which I am fond in various lights. Indeed, on latter reflection, I rather wish to be rid of Patrick Henry, that we may be at full liberty to take up Pinckney.

In the event of Pinckney’s return to this country, I am of opinion, all circumstances considered, it is expedient you should replace him. I hope no great question will in a short period agitate our councils, and I am sure you will do much good on the scene in question. I have called on Jay, but happened not to find him disengaged. I shall quickly see him, and shall, with great pleasure, do every thing requisite on my part.

We believe, confidently, our election in the city has succeeded; the other party, however, also claims success. Our Senator ticket seems admitted on both sides to have prevailed, and all accounts assure us of great success throughout the State. The vile affair of whipping Burke and McCredy made our election, in the view of the common people, a question between the rich and the poor. You will easily conceive how much this must have embarrassed and jeoparded.

to timothy pickering

May 10, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Inclosed is a letter which I will thank you to hand to its destination.

While I have my pen in my hand, give me leave to mention a particular subject to you. Mr. Pinckney, it is said, desires to return to the United States. In this case a successor will be wanted. If we had power to make a man for the purpose, we could not imagine a fitter than Mr. King.1 He is tired of the Senate, and I fear will resign at all events. I presume he would accept the mission to England. Can there be a doubt that it will be wise to offer it to him?1

to washington

New York,

May 10, 1796.

Sir:

When last in Philadelphia you mentioned to me your wish that I should re-dress a certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that a thing of this kind should be done with great care, and much at leisure, touched and re-touched, I submit a wish that as soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have, it may be sent to me.2

to washington

New York,

May 20, 1796.

Sir:

A belief that the occasion to which they may be applicable is not likely to occur, whatever may have been once intended, or pretended in terrorem, has delayed the following observations in compliance with your desire, and which are now the result of conferences with the gentlemen you named.

The precise form of any proposition or demand which may be made to or of the government, must so materially influence the course proper to be pursued with regard to such proposition or demand, that it is very difficult to judge by anticipation what would be fit and right. The suggestions which can be submitted must therefore be very general and liable to much modification, according to circumstances.

It would seem in almost any case advisable to put forward a calm exhibition of the views by which our government has been influenced in relation to the present war of Europe,—making prominent the great interest we have in peace, in our present infant state; the limitedness of our capacity for external effort; the much greater injury we should have suffered than good we could have done to France, by taking an active part with her; the probability that she would have derived more advantage from our neutrality than from our direct aid; the promptitude with which, while all the world was combined against her, we recognized the new order of things and the continuance of our treaties, and before any other power had done so; the danger to which we exposed our selves in so doing; the fidelity with which we have adhered to our treaties, notwithstanding formal violations of certain parts of them on the other side; our readiness, to the utmost extent of our abilities, to discharge our debt without hesitation in the earliest period of the revolution, and latterly having facilitated an anticipated enjoyment of the balance; the zeal and confidence of our merchants, by which they are now creditors for very large sums to France; the patience with which we have seen infractions of our rights; the peculiar nature of the war as it regarded the origin of our relations to France (quare?); the declaration of the war by France against the maritime powers; her incapacity for maritime effort and to supply our deficiency in that particular so as to render a war not absolutely ruinous to us; the early expectations given to us by her agents that we were not expected to become parties; the exposed state of our commerce at this time with an immense property of our merchants afloat, relying on the neutral plan which they have understood our government to be pursuing, even with the concurrence of France, at least without its opposition; the extreme mischiefs to us of a sudden departure from the plan, and the little advantage to France from our aid; the merely peace views which influenced our treaty with Great Britain; the nature of that treaty involved no ingredient of political connection reserving the obligation of our prior treaties; the commercial articles terminating in two years after the present war; nothing in it to change the nature of our relations with France. All this will, of course, require great caution and delicacy, so as not to compromise the dignity of the country or give umbrage elsewhere, and I think the observations ought to hold out the idea that, under all the circumstances of the case, the government of the country thought itself at full liberty consistently with its treaties with France, to pursue a neutral plan. And they ought to hold up strongly our desire to maintain friendship with France; our regret that any circumstance of dissatisfaction should occur; our hope that justice and reason will prevail, and preserve the good understanding, etc. The conclusion of this preliminary exposition will be according to the nature of the proposition.

If it should claim a renunciation of the British treaty, the answer will naturally be that this sacrifice of the positive and recent engagements of the country is pregnant with consequences too humiliating and injurious to allow us to believe that the expectation can be persisted in by France, since it is to require a thing impossible, and to establish, as a price of the continuance of friendship with us, the sacrifice of our honor by an act of perfidy which would destroy the value of our friendship to any nation. That, besides, the Executive, if it were capable of complying with a demand so fatal to us, is not competent to it, it being the province of Congress, by a declaration of war, or otherwise, in the proper cases, to annul the operation of treaties.

If it should claim the abandonment of the articles of the present treaty respecting free ships, free goods, etc., the answer may be that our treaties with France are an entire work, parts of a whole; that nevertheless the Executive is disposed to enter into a new negotiation by a new treaty to modify them, so as may consist with a due regard to mutual interest and the circumstances of parties, and may even tend to strengthen the relations of friendship and good understanding between the two countries.

If the guaranty of the West Indies should be claimed, the answer may be, “that the decision of this question belongs to Congress, who, if it be desired, will be convened to deliberate upon it.” I presume and hope they will have adjourned—for to gain time is every thing.

The foregoing marks the general course of our reflections. They are sketched hastily, because they can only be general ideas, and much will depend on minute circumstances.

I observe what you say on the subject of a certain diplomatic mission. Permit me to offer with frankness the reflections which have struck my mind.

The importance of our security, and commerce, and good understanding with Great Britain, renders it very important that a man able and not disagreeable to that government, should be there. The gentleman in question, equally with any who could go, and better than any willing to go, answers this description. The idea hinted in your letter will apply to every man fit for the mission, by his conspicuousness, talents, and dispositions. ’T is the stalking-horse of a certain party, and is made use of against every man who is not in their views and of sufficient consequence to attract their obloquy. If listened to, it will deprive the government of the services of the most able and faithful agents. Is this expedient? What will be gained by it? Is it not evident that this party will pursue its hostility at all events as far as public opinion will permit? Does policy require any thing more than that they shall have no real cause to complain? Will it do, in deference to their calumniating insinuations, to forbear employing the most competent men, or to entrust the great business of the country to unskilful, unfaithful, or doubtful hands? I really feel a conviction that it will be very dangerous to let party insinuations of this kind prove a serious obstacle to the employment of the best qualified characters. Mr. King is a remarkably well-informed man, a very judicious one, a man of address, a man of fortune and economy, whose situation affords just ground of confidence;—a man of unimpeached probity where he is best known, a firm friend to the government, a supporter of the measures of the President—a man who cannot but feel that he has strong pretensions to confidence and trust.

I might enlarge on these topics, but I have not leisure, neither can it be necessary. I have thrown out so much in the fulness of my heart, and too much in a hurry to fashion either the idea or the expression as it ought to be. The President, however, will, I doubt not, receive what I have said—as it is meant, as dictated by equal regard to the public interest and to the honorable course of his administration.

to oliver wolcott

May 30, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I perceive Congress are invading the Sinking Fund system. If this goes through, and is sanctioned by the President, the fabric of public credit is prostrate, and the country and the President are disgraced. Treasury bills, and every expedient, however costly, to meet exigencies, must be preferable, in the event, to such an overthrow of system.

to james mchenry1

New York,

June 1, 1796.

My Dear Mc.:

I am told the Executive Directory have complained of Mr. ——, our consul at ——. Perhaps the complaint may be ill-founded, but perhaps also he was indiscreet in giving color for it. Admit too that he is a good man, yet we must not quarrel with France for pins and needles. The public temper would not bear any umbrage taken, where a trifling concession might have averted it. ’T is a case for temporizing, reserving our firmness for great and necessary occasions. Let Mr. —— be superseded with a kind letter to him. I do not write to Pickering, or the President, because I am not regularly possessed of the information, but I hope you will attend to the matter, even at the expense of being a little officious.

to washington

New York,

June 1, 1796.

Sir:

Your letter of the 29th was delivered me by Mr. King yesterday afternoon. I thought I had acknowledged the receipt of the paper inquired for in a letter written speedily after it—or in one which transmitted you a draft of a certain letter by Mr. Jay. I hope this came to hand.

I am almost afraid to appear officious in what I am going to say; but the matter presses so deeply on my mind, that fearing you may not recollect the situation of the thing, and that it may happen not to be brought fully under your eye, I cannot refrain from making the suggestion to you. It regards a bill which, I am told, has lately passed the two Houses of Congress, authorizing a sale of bank stock, for paying off a sum due to the bank. You will perceive by the 8th and 9th sections of the act entitled, “An Act making further provision for the support of the public credit,” and for the redemption of the public debt, passed the 3d of March, 1795, that the dividends of the bank stock are appropriated to the sinking fund, with all the force and solemnity of which the language is capable, and that to divert them in the manner proposed (and this too without any substitute in the act which so diverts) will be a formal, express, and unequivocal violation of the public faith, will subvert the system of the sinking fund, and with it all the security which is meant to be given to the people for the redemption of the public debt, and, violating the sanctity of an appropriation for the public debt, will overturn at once the foundation of the public credit. These are obvious and undeniable consequences; and though I am aware that great embarrassments may ensue to the Treasury if the bill by the objection of the President is lost, and no substitute for it takes place towards the reimbursement of the bank; yet I am sure no consequences can ensue of equal moment from the rejection as from the principle of the bill going into execution.

All the President’s administration has effected for establishing the credit of the country will be prostrate at a single blow. He will readily make all necessary comments upon this position. It grieves my heart to see so much shocking levity in our representative body.

to oliver wolcott

New York,

June 9, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I called at your house the morning of my departure, but you were not then up. While I was in the city, we had a little conversation concerning an affair of an arrangement with Swan1 for effecting a remittance to Holland. I intended to resume it for two reasons: one, because it has been represented to the disadvantage of the conduct of the Treasury; another because Swan, who lodged at the same house with me, begged me to converse with you on the subject, and give my opinion both to you and him of what I thought of the matter. The latter I should of course have managed with due regard to all prudential considerations.

But I wished chiefly to apprise you that it is industriously circulated that Monroe and Skipwith, as agents for the Treasury, received Swan’s money at Paris to remit to Holland, that they mismanaged the fund, produced, besides, delay and loss, and that the Treasury now endeavors to turn the loss on Swan. If you have not been apprised of this, it is requisite you should be.1

to oliver wolcott

June 15, 1796.

Dear Sir:

The post of to-day brought me a letter from you. From some recent information which I have obtained here, I have scarcely any doubt that the plan of the French is—

Firstly.—To take all enemy property in our ships contrary to the treaty between the two countries.

Secondly.—To seize and carry in all our vessels laden with provisions for any English port.

Among this, all that they choose to think enemy property will be seized, and for the residue they will promise to pay.

This state of things is extremely serious. The government must play a skilful card, or all is lost. No doubt an explanation has been asked of Mr. Adet. There is room enough for asking it, and the result, if explanatory, ought, in some convenient way, to be made known.

Moreover, the government must immediately set in earnest about averting the storm. To this end, a person must be sent in place of Monroe. General Pinckney, John Marshall, Mr. Desaussure, of South Carolina, young Washington, the lawyer, McHenry, Secretary at War, Judge Peters, occur as eligible in different degrees, either of them far preferable to Monroe. It may be understood that the appointment is permanent or temporary, at the choice of the person sent. Under this idea, perhaps Pinckney may be prevailed upon, perhaps Marshall, it being well urged as a matter of great importance to the country.

I mentioned to Colonel Pickering an idea, which has since dwelt powerfully on my mind. Mr. King ought not to be empowered to do any thing to prolong the treaty beyond the two years after the war. This will afford the government a strong argument. I earnestly hope this idea will prevail in the instructions.

P. S.—After turning the thing over and over in my mind, I know of nothing better that you have in your power than to send McHenry. He is not yet obnoxious to the French, and has been understood formerly to have had some kindness towards their revolution. His present office would give a sort of importance to the mission. If he should incline to an absolute relinquishment, his mission might be temporary, and Colonel Pickering could carry on his office in his absence. He is at hand, and might depart immediately, and I believe he would explain very well, and do no foolish thing. Though unusual, perhaps it might be expedient for the President to write, himself, a letter to the Executive Directory, explaining the policy by which he has been governed, and assuring of the friendship. But this would merit great consideration. Our measures, however, should be prompt.

Sometimes I think of sending Pinckney, who is in England; but various uncertainties and possible delays deter one from this plan.

Remember always, as a primary motive of action, that the favorable opinion of our country is to be secured.

A frigate or two to serve as convoys would not be amiss. If the English had been wise, they would neither have harassed our trade themselves, nor suffered their trade with us to be harassed. They would see this a happy moment for conciliating us by a clever little squadron in our ports and on our coast.

A hint might not perhaps do harm.

to oliver wolcott

June 16, 1796.

Dear Sir:

It appears to me material, under our present prospects, to complete three frigates without delay. They may be useful with reference to the Algerines. They may be useful to convoy our vessels out of the reach of picaroon privateers hovering on our coast. I know you want money; but could not the merchants, by secret movements, be put in motion to make you a loan? I think some thing of this kind may be done here, and I should presume at Philadelphia, etc. The sole ostensible object may be the Algerines, but the second object may circulate in whispers. If you conclude on any thing, I will second you.

Perhaps no bad form of the thing may be to place in the hands of your agents for building, Treasury bills from one hundred to one thousand dollars, payable in a year with interest; and to let it be known among the merchants that they are lodged exclusively to facilitate the equipment of the ships. But a more direct operation may be attempted, and I should hope with success, for the sum you may want for the frigates.

to washington

June, 1796.

Sir:

I have received information this morning of a nature which, I think, you ought to receive without delay. A Mr. Le Guen,1 a Frenchman—a client of mine, and in whom I have inspired confidence, and who is apparently a discreet and decent man—called on me this morning to consult me on the expediency of his becoming naturalized, in order that certain events between France and the United States might not prejudice him in a suit which I am directed to bring for him for a value of 160,000 dollars. I asked him what the events to which he alluded were. He made me the following reply under the strictest injunctions of confidence: “I have seen a letter from St. Thomas to Mr. Labagarde of this city, informing him that a plan was adopted to seize all American vessels carrying to any English port provisions of any kind, to conduct them into some French port; if found to be British property, to condemn them; if American, to take them on the accountability of the government; adding that he must not thence infer that it was the intention to make war upon the United States, but it was with a view to retaliate the conduct of Great Britain, to keep supplies from her, and to obtain them for themselves, and was also bottomed on some political motives not necessary to be explained.” “That it was also in contemplation when Admiral Richery arrived, if the ships could be spared, to send five sail of the line to this country.” Fearing, he said, that this might produce a rupture between the two countries, he had called to consult me on the subject, etc.

I asked his permission to make the communication to you. He gave me leave to do it, but with the absolute condition that the knowledge of names was on no account to go beyond you and myself. I must therefore request, sir, that this condition be exactly observed. He has promised me further information.

I believe the information, as well because the source of it under all the circumstances engages my confidence, as because the thing appears in itself probable. France wants supplies, and she has not the means of paying, and our merchants have done crediting.

It becomes very material that the real situation should as soon as possible be ascertained, and that the merchants should know on what they have to depend. They expect that the government will ask an explanation of Mr. Adet, and that in some proper way the result will be made known.

It seems to become more and more urgent that the United States should have some faithful organ near the French government to explain their real views and ascertain those of the French. It is all important that the people should be satisfied that the government has made every exertion to avert a rupture, and as early as possible.

to oliver wolcott

June 26, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I learn from a gentleman of character, that a prize, brought into Boston by a French privateer, is about to be sold. This being in direct breach of our treaty with Great Britain, how does it happen? Though no particular law passed, the treaty being the law of the land, our custom-houses can, and ought to, prevent the entry and sale of prizes, upon Executive instruction. If any thing is wanting to this end, for God’s sake, my dear sir, let it be done, and let us not be disgraced.

Considering what is going on, and may go on, in the West Indies, it appears to me essential that the President should be empowered to lay embargoes in the interval between the present and the next session of Congress.

to washington

July 5, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I was in due time favored with your letter of the 26th June, and consulted the gentleman you named on the subject of it. We are both of opinion there is no power in the President to appoint an envoy extraordinary, without the concurrence of the Senate, and that the information in question is not a sufficient ground for extraordinary convening the Senate. If, however, the President from his information collectively be convinced that a dangerous state of things exists between us and France, and that an envoy extraordinary to avert the danger is a necessary measure, I believe this would, in the sense of the Constitution, warrant the calling of the Senate for the purpose. But this measure may be questionable in point of expediency, as giving a stronger appearance of danger than facts warrant. If further depredations on our commerce take place, if new revivals of the principle of the last capture should appear, it may alter the case. But without some thing more the measure would scarcely seem advisable. Mr. Jay and myself, though somewhat out of your question, talked of the expediency of removing Monroe, and though we perceive there are weighty reasons against it, we think those for it preponderate, if a proper man can be found. But here we feel, both immense embarrassment, for he ought to be at the same time a friend to the government and understood to be not unfriendly to the French Revolution. General Pinckney is the only man we can think of who fully satisfies the idea, and unfortunately every past experiment forbids the hope that he would accept, though but for a short time. But if a character of tolerable fitness can be thought of, it would seem expedient to send him. At any rate, it is to be feared, if under the symptoms of discontent which have appeared on the part of the French government, no actual and full explanation takes place, it will bring serious censure upon the Executive. It will be said that it did not display as much zeal to avoid misunderstanding with France as with Great Britain; that discontents were left to rankle; that if the agent of the government in France was negligent or unfaithful, some other mode ought to have been found.

As to your resignation, sir, it is not to be regretted that the declaration of your intention should be suspended as long as possible, and suffer me to add that you should really hold the thing undecided to the last moment. I do not think it is in the power of party to throw any slur upon the lateness of your declaration. And you have an obvious justification in the state of things. If a storm gathers, how can you retreat? This is a most serious question. The proper period now for your declaration seems to be two months before the time for the meeting of the electors. This will be sufficient. The parties will in the meantime electioneer conditionally, that is to say, if you decline; for a serious opposition to you will, I think, hardly be risked. I have completed the first draft (his own draft) of a certain paper, and shall shortly transcribe, correct, and forward it. I will then also prepare and send forward, without delay, the original paper (Washington’s draft), corrected upon the general plan of it, so that you may have both before you for a choice in full time, and for alternation if necessary.1

to oliver wolcott

July 7, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have had some conversation with some influential members of the Bank of New York, who are disposed to do all that shall be found possible. But I wish to know without exaggeration the least sum that will be a material relief to you, and when and how the payments will be desired.2

to elias boudinot

July 7, 1796.

My Dear Sir:

You will oblige me by letting me have an extract from that part of your mortgage law in New Jersey which regulates the mode of cancelling mortgages; also an extract from the registering book of the usual manner in which entries for cancelling were made about the years 1771, 1772, and 1773, and by informing me whether these entries have been adjudged conclusive—though the order or certificate of the mortgage is not to be found, the mortgage money not paid, and the fact should appear that the entry was a fraudulent act of the registering officer.

Excuse the trouble I give you, and use me freely in a like case.

How are your election prospects? Do not let the discontent with Dayton1 hazard the main point. ’T is better by a coalition with him to secure that, though you make some sacrifice of opinion, than to produce a dangerous schism.

Our affairs are critical, and we must be dispassionate and wise.

to oliver wolcott

July 15, 1796.

Dear Sir:

The application for a loan from the Bank of New York, though powerfully supported by some of the leading directors, labors, owing to the jealousy and narrowness of certain ones, who see in it a plan to increase the active capital of the Branch Bank, and put them in its power. Unluckily, the President suddenly went off to Rhode Island with his wife and some sick children. I pursue the affair, and I hope still to accomplish it.

There will be no difficulty in obtaining a postponement of the existing loan. But this I tell them will not be sufficient.2

to timothy pickering

July 21, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I communicated your letter to Mr. Jay, and now give you our joint sense.

Considering the nature of the transaction and what must necessarily have been presumed to be the intent, and that the authority is on a public subject, and between two nations, we think that a decision by two out of three commissioners must be sufficient.

We know nothing but an immediate personal interest in property which may be affected by the decision, that can be a conclusive objection to the person nominated—but this interest must be known, not suspected. The rest must be matter of negotiation. In point of property, neither government ought to name a person liable from local situation to the suspicion of particular interest or bias. But one cannot formally object to the nomination of the other on this general ground.

Declarations like those ascribed to Mr. Barkely, if well authenticated and unequivocal, importing clearly that he thought himself at liberty to gain advantages, and bound not to act impartially, would justify the government in stopping, and representing the matter to the British Government. But we ought to act with great caution not to give occasion to impute to us a spirit of procrastination or subterfuge. ’T is so much more important that the dispute should be settled than how it is settled (at least according to my idea of the object); that we should by no means seek for difficulties, but rather facilitate than impede.1

to oliver wolcott

July 28, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have not lost sight of the negotiation with the bank, though it labors, and I have thought it best to let it lie by till the President returns. Mr. McCormick is violent against it, and plays on little jealousies and, what is still more efficacious, private interests, representing the consequent inability of the bank to accommodate the merchants, many of whom, from the unfortunate issue of some recent speculations, are likely to want much aid.2

to oliver wolcott

July 30, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have written you a short line previous to the receipt of your letter of the 26th, to which, indeed, I can add nothing material.

It will, as things stand, be imprudent to push the point of a further loan till the President arrives—for, though a majority of the directors are well disposed to the thing, they are afraid of Mr. McCormick’s clamors and want the sanction of the President to control and counterbalance him. All, I am told, that can now be relied upon, is a postponement of the payment of the 200,000 dollars heretofore lent, to which Mr. McCormick assents.1

to washington

New York,

July 30, 1796.

Sir:

I have the pleasure to send you herewith a certain draft which I have endeavored to make as perfect as my time and engagements would permit. It has been my object to render this act importantly and lastingly useful, and, avoiding all just cause of present exception, to embrace such reflections and sentiments as will wear well, progress in approbation with time, and redound to future reputation. How far I have succeeded, you will judge. I have begun the second part of the task—the digesting of the supplementary remarks to the first address,—which, in a fortnight, I hope also to send you; yet I confess the more I have considered the matter, the less eligible this plan has appeared to me. There seems to me to be a certain awkwardness in the thing, and it seems to imply that there is a doubt whether the assurance without the evidence would be believed. Besides that, I think that there are some ideas which will not wear well in the former address, and I do not see how any part can be omitted, if it is to be given as the thing formerly prepared. Nevertheless, when you have both before you, you can judge. If you should incline to take the draft now sent, and after perusing and noting any thing that you wish changed, will send it to me, I will, with pleasure, shape it as you desire. This may also put it in my power to improve the expression, and perhaps, in some instances, condense. I rejoice that certain clouds have not lately thickened, and that there is a prospect of a brighter horizon.1

to greenleaf2

New York,

July 30, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have carefully reflected upon the subject of your letter of the 27th instant.

Though the data which it presents authorize an expectation of large pecuniary advantage, and though I discern nothing in the affair which an individual differently circumstanced might not with propriety enter into, yet, in my peculiar situation, viewed in all its public, as well as personal relations, I think myself bound to decline the overture.

to oliver wolcott

August 3, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have received your letter of the 1st. I deplore the picture it gives, and henceforth wish to forget there is a bank or a treasury in the United States, though I shall not forget my regard to individuals.

I do not see one argument in any possible shape of the thing, for the sale of bank stock, or against that of the other stock, which does not apply vice versa, and I shall consider it as one of the most infatuated steps that ever was adopted.

It will be known on Thursday whether any thing is to be expected here.

to oliver wolcott

August 5, 1796.

Dear Sir:

The Bank of New York is willing to make the loan of 324,000 dollars to you (I mean the exact sum of about this amount, if you desire it, which one of the laws you mention authorizes to borrow), on these terms: to advance all but 200,000 dollars, when you please to advance the 200,000 dollars, by way of reloan, when that sum, payable in October, becomes due. The term of credit to be, in each case, six months from the time of the advance. The interest, six per cent., with a deposit of stock (6 per cent.) at par, so placed as to permit the sale of it at the market price, if there be a failure of reimbursement at the stipulated periods. The treasury, upon honor, to draw immediately upon the bank as the money is wanted for expenditure, not to transfer it before-hand. On this point, sincerity and delicacy will be expected.

It was mentioned, too, as desirable, though notmade a condition, that it should be understood that in case a real pressing emergency in the course of the winter should exist, the bank, on giving previous notice of the necessity to the Treasury might be at liberty to sell the stock at the then market price. The directors to be, upon honor, not to use this permission but in case of real necessity. Their honor, I know, may be entirely relied upon, and it may be well to gratify.

The deposit of stock was suggested by myself, upon your first letter. It is an ingredient in the negotiation which the bank values.1

The bank wishes a speedy decision.

to washington

August 10, 1796.

Sir:

About a fortnight ago I sent you a certain draft. I now send you another on the plan of incorporation. Whichever you may prefer, if there be any part you wish to transfer from one to another, any part to be changed, or if there be any material idea in your own draft which has happened to be omitted, and which you wish introduced, in short, if there be any thing further in the matter in which I can be of any (service), I will, with great pleasure, obey your commands.2

to washington

New York,

Sept. 4, 1796.

Sir:

I have received your two late letters, the last but one transmitting me a certain draft. It will be corrected and altered with attention to your suggestions, and returned by Monday’s or Tuesday’s post. The idea of the University is one of those which, I think, will be properly reserved for your speech at the opening of the session. A general suggestion respecting education will very fitly come into the address.1

to washington

New York,

Sept. 4, 1796.

Sir:

I return the draft, corrected agreeably to your intimations. You will observe a short paragraph added respecting education. As to the establishment of a university, it is a point which, in connection with the military schools, and some other things, I meant, agreeably to your desire, to suggest to you as parts of your speech at the opening of the session. There will several things come there much better than in a general address to the people, which like-wise would swell the address too much. Had I health enough, it was my intention to have written it over, in which case I would both have improved and abridged. But this is not the case. I seem now to have regularly a period of ill health every summer. I think it will be advisable simply to send the address by your secretary to Dunlap. It will, of course, find its way into all the other papers. Some person on the spot ought to be charged with a careful examination of the impression by the proof-sheet.3

to washington

New York,

Sept. 8, 1796.

Sir:

I have received your letter of the 6th by the bearer. The draft was sent forward by the post on Tuesday.

I shall prepare a paragraph with respect to the University and some others for consideration respecting other points which have occurred.2

to phineas bond

New York,

Sept. 15, 1796.

Sir:

Two days since a letter was delivered to me with a declaration of the bearer that it came from Mr. Lyston.3 On opening the cover I found nothing except a letter from Captain Cochran (which, though not addressed, would appear to have been written to some public agent of Great Britain) and a declaration of David Wilson and Thomas Marshall respecting the ship Eliza. The superscription of the packet resembling your handwriting, I concluded that it might have come from you, and that by some mistake the letter you had written me had been omitted, and that on discovery of omission it would have been forwarded by another opportunity. Finding after two days’ waiting that the expectation has not been realized, I have determined to write to you on the subject.

Mr. Charles Wilkes had previously applied to me concerning this affair, and had submitted to my consideration various papers. The result was that I discouraged a judicial prosecution. My reasons are these:

Taking it to be true, as stated, that Captain Huffey brought from the shore within our territory persons who, by force, aided him to rescue the captured vessel, I am of opinion that this circumstance would give jurisdiction of the case to our courts on the application of the capturing party.

But when on such application any of our courts should hold jurisdiction, it would in my judgment go into the merits and examine the validity of the capture.

Here these facts occur: that the Eliza, being a transport vessel in the service of Great Britain, was captured by a French privateer fitted out of some port of France by Barney, an American citizen, in quality of armateur—Levelle, probably a Frenchman, captain by commission, and was afterwards condemned as prize by the sentence of a Court of Admiralty at Dunkirk; and, as far as the direct proof goes, purchased in virtue of that sentence by an American citizen.

It is conjectured that two thirds of the vessel may have belonged to a French house—Messrs. De Baques—because it appears that Huffey paid two thirds of the purchase-money in a bill drawn by that house. But this is evidently a mere circumstance of suspicion, and wholly inconclusive. Why may not the De Baques have been factors or agents for Huffey? Why may not Huffey have purchased their draft towards the payment? One or the other of the two latter suppositions would no doubt prevail with the court if there was no collateral proof to the contrary.

It is also conjectured that the Eliza may have continued the property of Barney, but all the documents now in the power of the captor speak a contrary language. This suspicion, then, however just it may be in fact, cannot be supported.

The question then is, would the equipment of the privateer by Barney be sufficient to invalidate the purchase by a neutral citizen under the sentence of a court of the capturing power?

No opinion of any theoretic writer, nor, as I believe, any usage of any nation, nor the decisions of courts of admiralty, will authorize, in my judgment, an affirmative answer to that question.

If Mr. Barney comes within the 21st article of our treaty with Great Britain, it would make him liable, if taken by Great Britain, to be punished as a pirate. But it will be observed that the stipulation would not oblige the United States to treat him as such. And the article being confined to personal punishment, may be supposed not to contemplate the confiscation of property captured by such a person.

But it would be to go an unheard-of length to pronounce null the prize made under such circumstances by a vessel fitted out of the ports of the belligerent power, and regularly commissioned, and after a sentence of condemnation.

Therefore, and as the property in question is of little value, and as smart damages would be likely to attend a failure of the prosecution, I advised against it, as I now still do.

Yet, if Captain Cochran, or any person acting on his behalf, shall desire the experiment to be made, however unpromising in my view. I shall esteem it a professional duty, and due to justice to a foreign power, to put the affair in a course of judicial investigation.

to timothy pickering

New York,

Sept. 21, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Some time since Mr. McCormick spoke to me about the case of his kinsman, Mr. Pitcairn, whom Mr. Monroe had prevented from exercising the functions of consul. I can, in justice, inform you that this gentleman is well considered in our city, and that his political principles have been understood to be very friendly to the French Revolution; nor have we any doubts that his sentiments towards our own government are altogether American, so that in truth there can be no shadow of political objection to him as to the office for which he was intended.1

to ——

1796.

Our excellent President, as you have seen, has declined a re-election. ’T is all-important to our country that his successor shall be a safe man. But it is far less important who of many men that may be named shall be the person, than that it shall not be Jefferson. We have every thing to fear if this man comes in, and from what I believe to be an accurate view of our political man I conclude that he has too good a chance of success, and that good calculation, prudence, and exertion were never more necessary to the Federal cause than at this very critical juncture. All personal and partial considerations must be discarded, and every thing must give way to the great object of excluding Jefferson. It appears to be a common opinion (and I think it a judicious one), that Mr. Adams and Mr. Pinckney (late minister to England) are to be supported on our side for President and Vice-President. New York will be unanimous for both. I hope New England will be so too. Yet I have some apprehensions on this point, lest the fear that he may outrun Mr. Adams should withhold votes from Pinckney. Should this happen, it will be, in my opinion, a most unfortunate policy. It will be to take one only instead of two chances against Mr. Jefferson, and, well weighed, there can be no doubt that the exclusion of Mr. Jefferson is far more important than any difference between Mr. Adams and Mr. Pinckney. At foot, is my calculation of chances between Adams and Jefferson. ’T is too precarious. Pinckney has the chance of some votes southward and westward, which Adams has not. This will render our prospect in the main point, the exclusion of Jefferson, far better.

Relying on the strength of your mind, I have not scrupled to let you see the state of mine. I never was more firm in an opinion than in the one I now express, yet in acting upon it there must be much caution and reserve.1

to oliver wolcott

Albany,

Oct. 27, 1796.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of the 17th instant found me at Albany, attending the Supreme Court. I have no copy of the treaty with Great Britain at hand, but I am well satisfied, from memory, that the true interpretation of the treaty, enforcing, in this respect, the true rule of neutrality, forbids our permitting the sale of a prize, taken and brought in by a French national ship equally as if by a privateer, and that the prize vessel herself, with her cargo, ought to depart our ports. I hasten to give you my opinion thus far. I reserve to consider more at leisure what exceptions absolute necessity may justify. But this is clear: that as far as it may admit any, the exceptions must be measured and restricted by the necessity, and as soon as possible you must return into the path of the treaty.

Thus, if the prize vessel was absolutely insufficient to proceed to sea, her cargo ought to be sent out of the country in another vessel, and care ought to be taken that it does not go out under false colors. Our own officers, no doubt, must inspect and ascertain any case of necessity which may be suggested.

Pray, my good friend, let there be no evasions.

to oliver wolcott

November 1, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I wrote you a line from Albany, expressing an opinion from memory that our treaty with Great Britain prohibited the sale of prizes made by French national ships. Being just returned to town, I have looked into the article which related to the point, and I fear that opinion was wrong. In a day or two I will write to you more particularly.

Adet’s late communication demands a very careful and well-managed answer.

to oliver wolcott

November 3, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I have more carefully examined our treaty with Great Britain and I return to the opinion given you from Albany. My hesitation yesterday arose from the terms of the twenty-fourth article, which were confined to privateers, a word that has an appropriate sense, meaning ships of private persons commissioned to cruise. But the following article contains the equivalent one to that with France, upon which we refused all bringing in and sale of prizes by her enemies. The words are, “no refuse,” etc., the major including the minor. And though France, by our treaty with her, may bring in prizes, yet the treaty gives her no right to sell. The clause in question, in the English treaty, cannot take away the right she before had to bring in her prizes; but as she had not a positive right to sell, it will oblige her to depart with them: in other words, it will preclude her from whatever she has not a positive right to. This also is Mr. Jay’s opinion, and it is certainly agreeable to the whole spirit of the treaty.

to washington

November 4, 1796.

Sir:

I have lately been honored with two letters from you, one from Mount Vernon, the other from Philadelphia, which came to hand yesterday. I immediately sent the last to Mr. Jay, and conferred with him last night. We settled our opinion on one point, viz.: that whether Mr. Adet acted with or without instruction from his government in publishing his communication, he committed a disrespect towards our government, which ought not to pass unnoticed, and would most properly be noticed to him as the representative or agent. That the manner of noticing it, in the first instance, at least, ought to be negative; that is, by the personal conduct of the President towards the Minister. That the true rule on this point would be to receive the Minister at your levees with a dignified reserve, holding an exact medium between an offensive coldness and cordiality. The point is a nice one to be hit, but no one will know better how to do it than the President.

Self-respect and the necessity of discouraging further insult, requires that sensibility should be manifested; on the other hand, the importance of not widening a breach, which may end in rupture, demands great measure and caution in the mode.

Mr. Jay and myself are both agreed also, that no immediate publication of the reply which may be given ought to be made, for this would be like joining in an appeal to the public—would countenance and imitate the irregularity, and would not be dignified; nor is it necessary for any present purpose of the government. Mr. Jay inclined to think that the reply ought to go through Mr. Pinckney to the Directory, with only a short note to Adet, acknowledging the reception of his paper and informing him that this mode will be taken. I am not yet satisfied that this course will be best. We are both to consider further, and confer. You will shortly be informed of the result.

But whatever be the mode adopted, it is certain that the reply will be one of the most delicate papers that has proceeded from our government, in which it will require much care and nicety to steer between sufficient and too much justification, between self-respect and provocation of further insult or injury; and that will at the same time save a great political interest which this step of the French Government opens to us. Did I not know how guarded you will yourself be, I should be afraid of Mr. Pickering’s warmth. We must, if possible, avoid a rupture with France, who, if not effectually checked, will, in the insolence of power, become no less troublesome to us than to the rest of the world.

I dedicate Sunday to the execution of your commands in preparing certain heads. You will speedily hear again from me.

to washington

November 5, 1796.

Sir:

Yesterday, after the departure of the post, I received your letter of the 3d. I have since seen the answer to Adet. I perceive in it nothing intrinsically exceptionable, but some thing in the manner a little epigrammatical and sharp. I make this remark freely, because the card now to be played is perhaps the most delicate that has occurred in our administration, and nations, like individuals, sometimes get into squabbles from the manner more than the matter that passes between them. It is all-important to us—first, if possible, to avoid rupture with France; secondly, if that cannot be, to evince to the people that there has been an unequivocal disposition to avoid it. Our discussions, therefore, ought to be calm, smooth, inclined to be argumentative; when remonstrance and complaint are unavoidable, carrying upon the face of them a reluctance and regret, mingling a steady assertion of our rights and adherence to principle with the language of moderation, and, as long as it can be done, of friendship.

I am the more particular in these observations, because I know that Mr. Pickering, who is a very worthy man, has nevertheless some thing warm and angular in his temper, and will require much a vigilant, moderating eye.

I must evening saw Doctor Bailey, our health officer, who tells me that the French Consul here, in conversation with an assistant of the doctors, who is a refugee from St. Domingo, expressed a desire to make arrangements for the sick of a French fleet expected shortly to arrive at this port. I thought this circumstance worth communication.

to oliver wolcott

November 9, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I received yesterday your letter of the 6th, and immediately wrote some additional letters to the eastward, enforcing what I had before written. Pennsylvania does not surprise me.

I have reconsidered the opinion given to you on the third, and see no reason to change it. The reasoning which leads me to the conclusion, has not been sufficiently explained, I will therefore be more particular.

The articles in our treaty with France, which respect the subject, are the seventeenth and twenty-second.

The seventeenth consists of two parts.

First.—It grants asylum in our ports for French ships of war and privateers, with their prizes; and with liberty to carry them freely thence to their own ports.

Secondly.—It prohibits the giving refuge, in our ports, to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, or property, of the French. It grants no right to sell prizes in our ports, neither does the letter of the article prohibit prizes, made of the French, from coming into our ports. It only prohibits the instrument of making the prizes. But the construction justly adopted by the President was, that the prohibition, in its true spirit, excluded the bringing in of prizes, whether coming with, or without, the capturing vessels. ’T is upon this part of the treaty, alone, that prizes made by national vessels of Great Britain, were excluded from our ports. For,—

The twenty-second article with France is wholly confined to privateers; prohibiting those of other nations to fit or to sell their prizes in our ports.

This article, had it stood alone, would have left us as free to admit British national ships, with their prizes, into our ports, as our twenty-fourth article with Great Britain leaves us free to admit French national ships, with their prizes. For these articles are the exact equivalents of each other. So that, as before remarked, the prohibition of the coming in, or sale in, our ports, of prizes made upon the French by British national ships, was derived, by construction and implication, from the seventeenth article of our treaty with France.

It follows, that this article was considered as competent to prevent the coming in and sale of prizes.

If so, the same, or equivalent, terms in the British treaty, must be competent to the same thing.

Now the twenty-fifth article of our treaty with Great Britain has equivalent terms. We there read, that “no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as have made a prize upon the subjects, or citizens, of either of the contracting parties; but if forced, by stress of weather or the danger of the sea, to enter therein, particular care shall be taken to hasten their departure; and to cause them to retire as soon as possible.” This prohibition includes here, as in the seventeenth article of our treaty with France, a prohibition to sell prizes in our ports; not the prizes of privateers only, but prizes generally.

But France, it is answered, had a prior right, by the seventeenth article of our treaty with her, “to come and bring prizes into our ports.”

True, she had this right, and must have it still, notwithstanding the twenty-fifth article of our treaty with Great Britain: but she had no prior right, by treaty, to sell prizes in our ports; and consequently, as the twenty-fifth article of our treaty with Great Britain excludes, as the minor of a major, the selling of prizes in our ports, the exclusion, so far, is in force, because it contravenes no prior right of France. As far as the treaty with France gives a right, inconsistent with the above twenty-fifth article, that right forms an exception; but the exception must be only co-extensive with the right. The conclusion is that France retains the right of asylum, but is excluded from the right of selling. This gives effect to the twenty-fifth article with Great Britain, so far as the treaty-right of France does not require an exception.

And this construction ought to be favored, because it best comports with the rule of neutrality.

It will also best agree with the President’s former decisions. He permitted France to sell prizes; not because treaty gave her a right, but because he did not see clearly any law of the country, or of nations, that forbids it. But consistency does not require that this permission shall continue, if there be any thing in the treaty with Great Britain against it. Consistency, however, does require that the same latitude of construction should be given to the twenty-fifth article of our treaty with Great Britain, as was before given to the seventeenth article of our treaty with France. The same latitude will, as I apprehend, exclude the sale of prizes, by France, in the case in question.

I regret extremely the publication of the reply to Adet, otherwise than through the channel of Congress. The sooner the Executive gets out of the newspapers the better. What may now be in its power, will depend on circumstances which are to occur.

to washington

New York,

Nov. 10, 1796.

Sir:

I have been employed in making, and have actually completed a rough draft on the following heads: “National University; Military Academy; Board of Agriculture; establishment of such manufactories on public account as are relative to the equipment of army and navy, to the extent of the public demand for supply, and excluding all the branches already well established in the country; the gradual and successive creation of a navy; compensations to public officers; reinforcement of provision for public debt.” I send you this enumeration, that you may see the objects which I shall prepare for. But I must beg your patience till the beginning of the next week for the transmission of the draft, as I am a good deal pressed for time.

The Legislature having appointed Mr. Lawrence district judge, a successor will of course be to be provided. A conviction of his competency, a high opinion of his worth, and a long-established personal friendship, induce me to take the liberty of precipitating a recommendation to you of Mr. Troup, the present clerk of the District and Circuit Court (the attorney of the district being known to be disinclined to the office). Mr. Troup is a lawyer, professionally very respectable, so that his practice is inferior in productiveness to no other; but he has by the most unexceptionable means acquired a property sufficient to make it reasonable in him to withdraw from practice, upon a salary such as that of the district judge, and latterly his health has somewhat suffered from a long course of excessive application. His moral character is without an imputation of any sort; indeed, no man in the State is better esteemed than this gentleman; so that, I believe the appointment would be considered as altogether fit. I trust, however, that in expressing myself thus strongly, it will not occasion to you a moment’s embarrassment, if any candidate more agreeable to you shall occur.

to washington

November 11, 1796.

Sir:

My anxiety for such a course of things as will most promise a continuance of peace to the country, and in the contrary event a full justification of the President, has kept my mind dwelling on the late reply to Mr. Adet; and, though it is a thing that cannot be undone, yet, if my ideas are correct, the communication of them may not be wholly useless for the future. The more I have considered the paper, the less I like it.

I think it is to be regretted that answers were not given to the preceding communications of Mr. Adet. For silence commonly carries with it the appearance of hauteur and contempt. And even if the paper to be answered is offensive, ’T is better and less hazardous to harmony to say so, with calmness and moderation, than to say nothing. Silence is only then to be adopted when things have come to such a state with a minister, that it is the intention to break with him. And even in this case, if there is still a disposition to maintain harmony with his government, a reply ought to go through our own organ to it, so as to distinguish between the minister and the government.

The reason given for not having answered the inquiry respecting the impressment of our seamen is too broad. When two nations have relations to each other, and one is at war, the other at peace, if the one at peace suffers liberties to be taken with it by the enemy of the one at war, which turns to the detriment of the latter, it is a fair subject of inquiry and discussion. The questions may be asked: How does this happen? What measures are taken to prevent a repetition or continuance? There is always possibility of connivance, and this possibility gives a right to inquire, and imposes an obligation to enter into friendly explanation. ’T is not a matter of indifference to our friend, what conduct of its enemy we permit towards ourselves. Much indeed in all these cases depends on the manner of the inquiry; but I am satisfied the principle is as I state it, and the ground assumed by Mr. Pickering, in the latitude of the expression, untenable.

These opinions are not confined to me. Though most people like the air of what is called spirit in Mr. Pickering’s letter, yet some of the best friends of the cause whisper cautiously remarks similar to the above.

It is a question now well worth considering, whether, if a handsome opportunity of rectifying should not occur with Mr. Adet, it may not be expedient, specially to instruct Mr. Pinckney, to make the explanations, putting our backwardness here to the score of the manner of the inquiry, and qualifying the generality of our principle—without giving up our right of judging of the measure of our compliance in similar cases.

I know you will so well appreciate the motives to these observations, that I run no risk in being thought officious, and I therefore freely transmit them, being always, etc.

to washington

New York,

Nov. 19, 1796.

Sir:

I duly received your letter of the 12th instant. My avocations have not permitted me sooner to comply with your desire. I have looked over the papers, and suggested alterations and corrections; and I have also numbered the paragraphs, I., II., III., etc., in the order in which it appears to me eligible they should stand in the speech.

I thought, upon full reflection, you could not avoid an allusion to your retreat, in order to express your sense of the support of Congress, but that the simplest manner of doing it was to be preferred. A paragraph is offered accordingly.

I believe the commencement of a navy ought to be contemplated. Our fiscal concerns, if Congress please, can easily be rendered efficient; if not, ’T is their fault, and ought not to prevent any suggestion which the interest of the country may require.

The paragraph in your letter respecting our Mediterranean commerce may well be incorporated in this part of the communication.

You will observe a paragraph I have framed contemplates a full future communication of our situation with France. At present it seems to me that this will be effected in the following mode:

Let a full reply to Mr. Adet’s last communication be made, containing a particular review of our conduct and motives from the commencement of the Revolution. Let this be sent to Mr. Pinckney, to be imparted to the Directory; and let a copy of it, with a short auxiliary statement of facts, if necessary, be sent to the House of Representatives. As Mr. Adet has suspended his functions, I presume no reply can be made to him; but, not having seen his paper, I cannot judge.

The crisis is immensely important to the glory of the President, and to the honor and interest of the country.

It is all-important that the reply to Adet’s last communication, to whomsoever made, should be managed with the utmost possible prudence and skill, so that it may be a solid justification—an in-offensive remonstrance—the expression of a dignified seriousness—reluctant to quarrel, but resolved not to be humbled. The subject excites the greatest anxiety.

to oliver wolcott

November 22, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I thank you for your note sending me Adet’s letter. The present is, in my opinion, as critical a situation as our government has been in, requiring all its prudence, all its wisdom, all its moderation, all its firmness.

Though the thing is now passed, I do not think it useless to say to you that I was not well pleased with the Secretary of State’s answer to Adet’s note communicating the order respecting neutral vessels. There was some thing of hardness and epigrammatic sharpness in it. Neither did I think the position true that France had no right to inquire respecting the affair of seamen. I am of opinion that whenever a neutral power suffers liberties to be taken with it by a belligerent one, which turns to the detriment of the other party, as the acquiring strength by impressing our seamen, there is a good ground of inquiry, demanding candid explanation.

My opinion is, that our communication should be calm, reasoning, and serious, showing steady resolution more than feeling, having force in the idea rather than in the expression.

I am very anxious that our government should do right on the present occasion.

My ideas are these:

As Adet has declared his functions suspended, the reply ought not to be to him, but through Mr. Pinckney to the Directory.

It ought to contain a review of our conduct from the beginning, noticing our first and full acknowledgment of the Republic, and the danger we ran by it. Also the dangers we incurred by other large interpretations of the treaty in favor of France, adverting to the sale of prizes.

It should meet all the suggestions of the Minister, correct his misstatements of facts, and meet, argumentatively, his principles. Where arguments already used are repeated, it ought to be in a new language, or by quotations in the body of the reply, not by reference to other communications annexed, or otherwise, which embarrass the reading and attention.

It should review calmly the conduct of France and her agents, pointing out fully and clearly the violations of our rights, and the spirit which was manifested, but in terms the most cautious and in-offensive.

It should advert to the policy of moderation towards the enemies of France, which our situation and that of France, especially as to maritime power, imposed upon us.

It should briefly recapitulate the means of obtaining redress from Great Britain employed by our government, and the effects they have produced.

It should explain why the government could not adopt more expeditious modes; why the Executive could not control the Judiciary, and should show that, in effect, the opposite party, as well as France, suffered the inconveniences of delay.

It should make prominent the consequences upon the peace and friendship of governments, if all accidental infractions from situation, from the negligences, etc., of particular officers, are to be imputed with severity to the government itself, and should apply the remark to the case of the injuries we have suffered, in different ways, from the officers and agents of France.

It should make prominent two ideas: the situation in which we were with Great Britain prior to the last treaty, so as to show that, by the laws of nations, as admitted to us and declared to France and the world, prior to that treaty, all the things complained of as resulting from that treaty previously existed. And it should dwell on the exception, in that treaty, of prior treaties.

It should point out strongly the idea that the inconvenience at particular junctures of particular stipulations is no reason for one party superseding them, but should intimate that the President is willing to review the relations between the two countries, and, by a new treaty, if the same shall be approved by the Senate, to readjust the terms of those relations.

The article in the treaty with France respecting an admission of the same privileges which are granted to other powers should be examined. This plainly means where there is any concession of a positive privilege which the United States were free to refuse, not where there is a mere recognition of the principles of the laws of nations.

It should be made prominent that the United States have always wished, and still wish, to cultivate the most amicable relations, and are still disposed to evince this disposition by every method in their power; that in what they said they mean only to show that they have acted in sincerity and good faith, and have rather received than given cause to complain; that they have been disposed to make a candid construction of circumstances which might seem inconsistent with a friendly conduct in France, and claim a similar candor in the estimate of their situation and conduct.

There should be an animadversion upon the unfitness of looking beyond the government to the citizens.

And there should be these ideas, properly couched: that the United States cannot admit that a just cause of resentment has been given; that they appeal from the misapprehension which dictated this sentiment to the justice and magnanimity of France, for a retraction of it, and for meeting them freely in the complete restoration of a friendly intercourse; that France will not deliberately expect that they could make a sacrifice of self-respect, since she must be sensible that a free people ought, in every event, to cherish it as a sacred duty, and to encounter with firmness every danger and calamity which an attempt to make them forget it, or degrade them from their independent character, may involve.

This would be the general complexion of the reply which I would give. The manner should be extremely cautious, smooth, even friendly, but yet solemn and dignified.

The alliance, in its future operation, must be against our interest. The door to escape from it is opened. Though we ought to maintain with good faith our engagements, if the conduct of the other party releases us, we should not refuse the release, so far as we may accept without compromitting our peace. This idea is very important.

to oliver wolcott

December 6, 1796.

Dear Sir:

The president of the Bank of New York called upon me yesterday and manifested considerable anxiety about the state of the bank. It seems the course of things lately and their large accommodations to the Government have produced a balance against them in favor of the office of discount at this place, which has lately called for 100,000 dollars in specie and it is apprehended may speedily call for more.

The president mentioned this situation generally, with only this view, to show that the bank would probably be under the necessity of selling the stock pledged with them, if the government should not be punctual. It was at the same time declared that nothing but necessity would lead to any measure inconvenient to the government, yet it was thought advisable to admonish of the probable necessity.

A director two or three days since also mentioned to me that there was a sum of about 26,000 dollars of interest due to the bank, of which an account had been rendered, but which was not paid, adding that in the present situation every little would help. Observations like these are of course confidential. But the situation requires, and it will make it good policy that, if in your power, you should come to the aid of the Bank of New York. It would be wise, if possible, to anticipate a particular payment. It will be also useful to arrest for a time too free calls from the office.

Friendly attention and good offices on your part will inspire confidence and embolden the bank to assist in future emergencies, and it is very much the policy of the Treasury not to be exclusively dependent on one institution.

P. S.—Let me hear from you on this subject. What is doing with Adet?

to rufus king

New York,

Dec. 16, 1796.

I have received, my dear sir, your several letters of the 25th of August, 10th and 11th of September. You know my sentiments towards you too well to ascribe my delay in answering them to any other cause than the imperiousness of avocations with which I could not dispense.

Public opinion, taking the country at large, has continued since you left us to travel on a right direction, and, I trust, will not easily deviate from it. You will have seen before this reaches you Mr. Adet’s communications. We conjecture, as to the timing of them, that they were intended to influence the election of president by the apprehension of war with France. We suppose also they are designed in the same way to give support to the partisans of France, and that they have for eventual object the placing things in just such a state as will leave France at liberty to slide easily either into a renewal of cordiality or an actual or virtual war with the United States. If the war of Europe continues, the efforts of France will be likely to be levelled as a primary object against the commerce and credit of Great Britain; and to injure these, she may think it advisable to make war upon our trade,—forgetting perhaps that the consequence may be to turn it more entirely into the channels of Great Britain. These reflections will be obvious to you. I only make them to apprise you of the view which is taken of the subject here. Thus far appearances do not indicate that the purpose of influencing the country has been obtained. I think, in the main, the effect has been to impress the necessity of adhering more firmly to the government.

You need not be told that every exertion not degrading to us will be made to preserve peace with France. Many of the opposite party, however they may be pleased with appearances of ill-humor in France, will not wish to go to the length of war. And we shall endeavor to avoid it in pursuance of our general plan of preserving peace with all the world. Yet you may depend that we shall not submit to be dictated to, or to be forced into a departure from our plan of neutrality, unless to repel an attack upon us.

Our anxiety has been extreme on the subject of the election for president. If we may trust our information, which we have every reason to trust, it is now decided that neither Jefferson nor Burr can be president. It must be either Adams or Pinckney—the first most probably. By the throwing away of votes in New England, lest Pinckney should outrun Adams, it is not unlikely that Jefferson will be vicepresident. The event will not a little mortify Burr. Virginia has given him only one vote.

It was expected of course that the Senate’s answer to the President would be flattering to him. But the speech in the House of Representatives has been better than was expected. An address, which I have not seen, but stated by our friends to be a very good one, has passed the House with only twelve dissenting, consisting of the most fiery spirits. The address is not only generally complimentary to the President, but includes, it is said, an explicit approbation of his administration, which caused the division. Edward Livingston is in the minority.

After giving you these consolatory accounts, I am now to dash the cup a little by telling you that Livingston is in all probability re-elected in this city. The principal cause has been an unacceptable candidate on our part—James Watson. There were four gentlemen who would certainly have succeeded, but none of them would accept. In Watson we could not unite opinions. He was more disagreeable than I had supposed to a large body of our friends, and yet, after the declining of the persons alluded to, we could not do otherwise than support him; for he had gotten a strong hold upon most of the leading mechanics who act with us.

But in the State at large we shall better our representation, and I hope for a majority in the House of Representatives. As an omen of this there are several new members in Congress from different States who hitherto vote with our friends.

The favorable change in the conduct of Great Britain towards us strengthens the hands of the friends of order and peace. It is much to be desired that a treatment in all respects unexceptionable from that quarter should obviate all pretext to inflame the public mind.

We are laboring hard to establish in this country principles more and more national and free from all foreign ingredients, so that we may be neither “Greeks nor Trojans,” but truly Americans.

to oliver wolcott

New York,

Dec. 21, 1796.

Dear Sir:

I did not understand by your letter of the 17th of November whether you meant or not to authorize the immediate commencement of the sale of stock. If you think this measure will become indispensable, it may be well to anticipate the execution; though, indeed, sales of stock are at this juncture nearly impracticable. Yet I imagine it will be agreeable to the bank to have permission to anticipate.

A very prudent letter has lately been written by the president of the Bank of the United States to the Office of Discount here, among other things advising a reduction of the balance due from the Bank of New York to 100,000 dollars. This letter, which in my opinion leaves, as it ought to do, to the directors of the office here, discretion to execute the idea with due regard to circumstances, has, however, been construed by them in too peremptory a light; and accordingly they have drawn from the Bank of New York pretty rapidly 150,000 dollars, which begets an apprehension that subsequent calls may be equally rapid, and, exciting fear and jealousy, is likely to produce too sudden a retrenchment of the business of the Bank of New York. And as the office, being confined, as they suppose, to discounting twice their capital, cannot, by increased accommodations, fill the void, there is danger of stagnating and convulsing the business of the city so as to give a shock to credit. The directors here are sensible of the danger, but several of them take the intimation from Philadelphia in too strict a sense, and cannot resolve to alleviate the apprehensions of the Bank of New York.

Though the Bank of New York has reduced and is reducing its discounts, there are circumstances of the moment which continue to incline the balance in favor of the office, but it is easy to see, taking in the payments of the government in February, that there will be a natural change, and consequently it is every way imprudent to force them.

If the last loan of the Bank of New York to government had no other use than that which you hint, this still was very important. And it is interesting all round that a disposition should exist to repeat similar accommodations. But you easily see how cautious and disaffected spirits are armed against it when they can say, “We told you that you would embarrass yourself by your loan to government,” and in truth if this had not been made the Bank of New York would now stand on high ground.

Pray interpose with Mr. Willing to obtain an explanatory letter leaving more clearly the time and manner of accomplishing the reduction of the present balance to their discretion.

I will say nothing more of an anticipated payment, but if this were practicable to the extent of 50,000 or 100,000 dollars it would be consolatory to the directors and leave the residue more to your convenience.

Don’t derive from this letter any source of alarm. Every thing is sound with both banks here. I know the state of both. But there is danger that fear and jealousy in the directors of the Bank of New York may produce evil which it is unnecessary to hazard. I wish to see your report on direct taxes.

I shall send you, the first opportunity, the volume of “Reports of Courts.”

P.S.—Mr. Caleb Brewster is a candidate for the office of first mate in the revenue cutter here. I remember he rendered very meritorious services in the war, and I am told has been bred a seaman. In these respects he has a good claim. His character otherwise is not known to me. But if it affords no objection, I think he will be an eligible man.

It is said Walker is to resign. In this case Jonathan Burrall wishes to succeed. There cannot, you know, be a more fit man, and he will be entirely acceptable here.1

to theo. foster, esq.2

Philadelphia,

1 Sept., 1791.

Dear Sir:

I have had the pleasure of receiving your two letters of the 23rd July & 4th of August. You concluded rightly that it could require no apology for entering into the detail with which you have favored me. On a subject so interesting to your State, your desire to communicate information was indulged with peculiar propriety, & on any subject I shall always esteem myself obliged by your sentiments. Thoroughly impressed with the hardship of a decision against the certificates which had been surrendered to the State by their Proprietors, I did not come to it without a serious struggle between my Judgment & my Wishes; but after mature deliberation I saw no way of allowing those Certificates to be received on the proposed loan which would not involve inextricable embarrassment. All the States have called in large portions of their respective Debts.

There is good reason to believe, that on a close investigation Rhode Island might not be found to be the only State in which they had been so called in for a very inadequate consideration. And tho’it might be urged to distinguish the case, that Rhode Island alone compelled the surrender, on pain of forfeiture, it might be answered that in sound equity, there is no very material distinction between obliging Persons to surrender their property for less than its value, under the penalty of confiscation and laying them under a necessity of doing the same thing, from the total and deliberate neglect of a better provision. Be this as it may, I saw no safe rule, that would be admitted to be such by even the candid part of those, whose interest it might be to dispute it, by which I could pronounce that Certificates surrendered and cancelled by the Mutual Acts of the Creditor and Debtor should be permitted to receive and acquire validity in respect to one State and not in respect to another. And without such rule, all the extinguished portions of the Debts of all the States might, if they should think proper to make it so, acquire a capacity of being subscribed towards the assumption. Where this would lead it is not necessary to say. The two Carolinas have actually passed laws for subscribing the portions of their respective Debts which have been extinguished by them—the only answer I can give is that a Bond surrendered as discharged constitutes no Debt and that in every such case, there is no Debt to be assumed.

I cannot allow an after act of a State to create a Debt within the meaning of the funding Act, which it cannot be admitted to have contemplated as then in existence. It may be asked, How then shall the Certificates which remained in the hands of Individuals, but which were forfeited by the law of the State, be admitted upon the Loan, any more than those which were surrendered? This is a question not wholly free from difficulty; but if I had found no distinction satisfactory to my own mind, I should have been obliged to reject the whole. Such a distinction, however, was in my opinion to be found. Upon principle, it is a general rule, that the dissolution of a contract by one party without the concurrence of the other, is void.

The Creditors who did not concur may claim the benefit of that rule and it is to be supposed that it was the intention of Congress, they should have it. It may be said to be a legal presumption that Congress, at the time of passing the funding Act, was acquainted with the laws of Rhode Island respecting the Certificates. And in point of fact the generality of them were so at least in substance. They must, therefore, have been apprised, that if the forfeiture annexed in those laws to the not bringing in the certificates for payment was to prevail, there was no debt of the State of Rhode Island to be assumed. By assuming a Sum of 200,000 Dollars, a sum by the way nearly corresponding with the amount of the outstanding Certificates, the clear inference is that they meant to consider those Certificates as in force, and the forfeiture as far as regarded the assumption, as inoperative. But it is not a reasonable presumption, that they could have intended to comprise the surrendered Certificates, which could not even be repossessed by the individual proprietors without a subsequent act of the State.

I have made some suggestions in this letter, which I should perhaps have omitted if I had considered it as strictly official, and therefore request that it may be received as a private and in some sort a confidential communication.

I cannot lose the opportunity of expressing to you that I feel myself truly and very much indebted to the Senators of Rhode Island for the very flattering manner in which they have made mention of the Secretary of the Treasury in their late communication to the State.

The measure of their approbation certainly exceeds that of his services or pretentions.

With respectful consideration and real regard, I have the honor to be

Dear Sir Your obedient Servant.

to oliver wolcott

December 23, 1796.

My Dear Sir:

I wrote to you two days ago on the subject of obtaining an instruction from the Bank of the United States to the direction of the office here to prevent a speedy repetition of these calls on the Bank of New York. This bank has so large a proportion of its whole capital in the power of the office that, if it be not tranquillized on the subject of demands from that quarter, it will be driven to such violent operations as cannot fail to convulse credit, and, among other evils, prevent the collection of the revenues. The danger is urgent, and a prompt explanation is essential.

The situation of the Bank of New York is, no doubt, materially owing to the prolongation of the old and the new loan to government. Its capital is 900,000 dollars; its discount, 1,600,000. Here is certainly no imprudence.

Many of the merchants here are anxious for an accommodation for the duties similar to that which I upon certain trying occasions made. I know not what is possible on your part.1

[1]Eric Bollman, M.D., a Hanoverian by birth, concerned, as here stated, in the effort to liberate La Fayette. Banished for this, he came to the United States, and was a friend of Burr, and mixed up in his conspiracy, after which he returned to Europe.

[2]Francis Kinloch Huger, whose father, Col. Benj. Huger, was killed in the war, at Charleston, in 1780. He returned after the affair at Olmutz and entered the army. He died in 1855, aged 81.

[1]This was the demand for papers relating to the Jay treaty which caused so much discussion, and with which Washington finally declined to comply.

[2]Reprinted from Administrations of Washington and Adams, i., 310.

[1]William Smith, Member of Congress from South Carolina.

[1]Draft of an answer to the request of the House of Representatives for papers. See above, vol. viii., p. 161.

[2]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 377.

[1]Livingstons.

[1]Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts.

[1]Thomas Pinckney, of South Carolina. He was Minister to England, and had just concluded a treaty with Spain, securing the free navigation of the Mississippi.

[1]Rufus King, who was appointed and accepted.

[1]Now first printed from the Pickering papers in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

[2]“Copied from Writings of Washington. Whether it is an extract from, or the entire letter, is unknown to the editor.” (Note by J.C. Hamilton.) The paper referred to is the “Farewell Address.”

[1]James McHenry, of Maryland, Secretary of War.

[1]Colonel James Swan, of Boston. He had a most romantic and adventurous life, beginning as one of the Boston Tea-Party, and a soldier of the Revolution. In 1787, he went to Paris a bankrupt, where he speculated successfully, and whence he returned with a fortune in 1795. He went back to Europe in 1798, engaged in still larger enterprises, and failed. At the suit of a creditor he was thrown into Ste. Pelagie in 1815, and remained there fifteen years, litigating constantly in French courts. He died in 1831.

[1]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[1]Louis Le Guen brought suit to recover money for goods sold by his factors, a Jewish house in New York. The first verdict was for the factors and was set aside. The verdict on the new trial was for Le Guen for $120,000, and this was affirmed in the Court of Errors (February, 1800) after a great argument by Hamilton. The case was a famous one. Governur Morris appeared for the factors and Burr was associated with Hamilton.

[1]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, ii., 468, 522.

[2]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[1]Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey.

[2]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[1]Now first printed from the Pickering papers in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

[2]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[1]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society. This letter, and those preceding on the same subject, give a curious idea of the conduct of the government and the scale of financial dealings in 1796 as compared with those of to-day.

[1]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 523.

[2]Greenleaf described himself as worth five millions, and in debt for twelve hundred thousand dollars. He offered, if Hamilton would help him, and lend him his name, to give a third of his property, and make him his partner in a banking-house.

[1]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[2]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 523. This letter, and those which follow, all relate to the preparation of the farewell address which was published September 17, 1796.

[1]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 529.

[3]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 530.

[2]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 531.

[3]The British minister.

[1]Now first printed from the Pickering papers in the possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

[1]Reprinted from the History of the Republic, vi., 538.

[1]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers, in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

[2]This letter of Hamilton’s to Theo. Foster is now (1904) for the first time printed. The publishers are indebted to the courtesy of Mr. G. H. Crawford and to the Hamilton Club, of Brooklyn, for permission to use the letter in this set. Theo. Foster was United States Senator from Rhode Island in 1790.

[1]Now first printed from the Wolcott papers, in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 10

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

1796 - to rufus king - Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 10 [1774]

Edition used:

Part of: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), 12 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

to rufus king

My Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to william smith1

Dear Sir:

to rufus king

My Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to washington

Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to rufus king

to washington

Sir:

to rufus king

My Dear Sir:

to rufus king

Dear Sir:

to rufus king

Dear Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to rufus king

Dear Sir:

to rufus king

Dear Sir:

to timothy pickering

Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to james mchenry1

My Dear Mc.:

to washington

Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to washington

Sir:

to oliver wolcott

Dear Sir:

to washington

Dear Sir: