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.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

January 14, 1808.

Th. Jefferson to Mr. Gallatin.

I return you Towers’s application, and send you a similar one from a Mr. Stewart. The idea of our having a power to give special permits getting abroad will overwhelm us with applications. Would it not be better to give notice in the papers that the exception in the law as to vessels under the direction of the President is considered as going to such vessels only as are necessary for the correspondence of the government with its agents abroad, or with foreign nations? Foronda is about sending a vessel to the Havana, Vera Cruz, &c. We have not decided on sending packets to that place, but, as a meeting will be necessary in two or three days on the surplus of seamen now in actual service, we will then consider that of packets generally. Affectionate salutations.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 12th February, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The President was authorized to cause to be opened a road or roads through the territory lately ceded by the Indians to the United States from the river Mississippi to the Ohio, and to the former Indian boundary-line established by the Treaty of Greenville, by the 7th Section of an Act entitled “An Act to regulate and fix the compensation of clerks and to authorize the laying out certain public roads, and for other purposes,” passed 21st April, 1806, Sec. 8th, vol. of Laws, page 129. Under that authority two roads have been laid out, one from St. Louis, or rather Kaskaskia, through Vincennes to the Indian line in the direction of Cincinnati, and the other from Vincennes to the falls of the Ohio. I have not received official information that contracts had yet been made for the opening of either. They are only surveyed and laid out. As you are reporting on the Cumberland Road, and the commissioners have not extended yet the location of the road more than 7 or 8 miles beyond Brownsville, would it not be best to report that you have confirmed only so much of the road as extends from Cumberland to Brownsville, and made contracts for opening the same? The idea is suggested because by the terms of the Act it seems premature for the President to confirm any part of the road the location of which is not completed; because the ferment excited in the Pennsylvania Legislature on that particular portion of the road would be allayed by seeing that the President wishes the ground recommended by the Legislature to be fully examined before he forms a conclusive opinion; and because, as it relates to the general course of the road and of its extension towards St. Louis, I really believe that striking Charleston instead of Wheeling, though farther north than is desirable, would not lengthen the whole distance more than one or two miles. Considering the completion of that road across our mountains in the manner contemplated as a national object of great importance (particularly as a bond of union), I think it more useful to remove local and State opposition than to adhere too strictly to first, though correct, impressions.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

February 13, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

I send you Mr. Brown’s papers respecting the public property in New Orleans. I see nothing in them which is proper to lay before Congress until the commissioners shall have decided in whom the property is. When we shall have a list of what is really ours, Congress may be applied to to say what shall be done with it. After giving to the city what may be proper, and appropriating to their proper uses the buildings, &c., we should wish to occupy, I should think it best to lease the residue on ground-rents, which may keep our buildings, levees, &c., in perpetual repair. The ground-rents to be one-twentieth or of the value; to be revalued every twenty years. Have you Governor Claiborne’s statement of this property, which I enclosed to Mr. Madison for circulation? I suppose we need not move in the Batture until the agent comes on. Affectionate salutations.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

[18th February, 1808.]

General Dearborn’s plan for raising 6000 regulars and 24,000 minute-men or volunteers is submitted to the heads of Departments with a request of their opinions for or against it, and of any alterations they might suppose advantageous, and with as little delay as possible, because the House were to take up this day the bill into which this is to be ingrafted.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

February 18, 1808.

I think the number of men proposed sufficient for the present, it being understood that before Congress adjourns the propriety of a greater increase may be considered.

Of the organization and details I am not a judge; but I would suggest:

1. That if we have only brigadiers, and any body of regulars be called into service with militia, the command will devolve on any militia major-general whom the State executive may select.

2. That in relation to minute-men, it would be eligible, if otherwise practicable, that their services might be commanded not only for an adjoining State or Territory, but also for an adjoining colony or province belonging to a foreign power.

As early an estimate of the expense (annual, and specially for this year, taking in the gradual recruiting) as possible is desirable.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 27th February, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

It seems that fourteen American vessels, which had entered last summer in Amsterdam as coming from America, and with cargoes not of British growth, have been detained under suspicion of having in fact come from England with English cargoes. The clearances have been sent to Heinicken, the Dutch consul, in order to ascertain the fact. Four of the vessels having thus entered as if coming from New York, and with clearances apparently signed by the officers of that port, Heinicken writes to Mr. Gelston asking for the information and enclosing copies of the clearances. These are evidently forgeries intended to evade the French and Dutch regulations. For of the four vessels which had entered with such supposed New York papers, three had never been in that port, and the fourth, instead of clearing for Amsterdam with a cargo of sugar, as stated in the forged paper, had actually cleared for Liverpool with cotton, flour, and lumber. It is therefore clear that she landed her cargo in Liverpool, took there a cargo of sugar, and, having forged a new clearance and a set of other documents in order to show that the sugar was not British, proceeded to Amsterdam, where she is detained. I had before heard some vague reports of those transactions, and also a suggestion that the harsh interpretation put by Bonaparte, on his return from Poland, on his decree of November, 1806, was owing to his being made acquainted with the fraud. It is very possible that the three vessels may have been indeed British vessels sailing under American flags; for, as they had never been in New York, they must have forged not only the clearances, but also the sea-letters and other documents.

Mr. Gelston now inquires whether he shall give to Heinicken the information required. It will certainly seal the condemnation of the vessels; and he doubts whether we are bound to assist in carrying the French and Holland decrees into effect. The paper A is the copy of the true clearance under which the Jane sailed from New York, and is sent to me by Mr. Gelston. The paper B 4 is a copy of the forged clearance under which she entered Amsterdam, and the papers B 5, 6, and 7 are copies of the three other forged documents, intended to show that the sugar she had taken on board at Liverpool had been imported into the United States from French, Spanish, and Danish ports. Those four papers, B 4, 5, 6, 7, were enclosed to Mr. Gelston by Heinicken. The forged clearances and documents of the three other vessels, being similar to that of the Jane, have not been sent by Mr. Gelston.

There being fourteen vessels in that situation, and Heinicken having sent to Mr. Gelston the papers of four only, I presume that the other ten had entered Amsterdam as coming from other American ports, and that Heinicken has made a similar application to the collectors of those ports respectively from which they pretended to have cleared. The question is respectfully submitted for your consideration.

With great respect, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Department of Treasury, February 29, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I have given the directions to Mr. Gelston on the subject of the fraudulent papers used at Amsterdam. But I do not think that at this moment anything more, either by way of publication or message, would be expedient. Brown, the New Orleans collector, writes that he had cleared 42 vessels since the embargo was known, because he had no copy of the law. A packet from New York had brought the intelligence, and the latest letters received from Washington were of the 14th December. The embargo passed 22d December, and he writes on 28th January. I have written to him that the general knowledge of an embargo was sufficient to have made it his duty at least to refuse clearances; and that he must enforce the penalties against the owners of every vessel that sailed with knowledge of the first law. I presume that some flour was thus exported to Havana; but principally cotton to Liverpool. I think, however, that in his 42 vessels he includes coasting vessels. It appears from the enclosed paper, under the head Communication, that we have no district attorney in East Tennessee. I cannot obtain a copy of the supplementary Non-Importation Act. They say that they (in the office of the Secretary of State) have not got it.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 2d March, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I think that Congress might now decide whether they will give to the corporation the right of the United States, 1st, to the Batture; 2d, to the fortifications and ground contained between them and the houses; 3d, to the levy and ground contained between it and the houses. If they give the Batture, it may be done without any restrictions; but if they give either of the other portions of ground, which are extremely valuable, it must be under conditions, 1st, that the custom-house lot shall be reserved for the United States; 2d, that no other buildings shall be erected in front of the city; 3d, perhaps that the President should reserve what may be necessary for public use. Congress may also authorize the President to sell such lots, not disputed, as he may think proper. But would it not be best to confine ourselves for the present to the Batture, and to wait for the report of the commissioners? I have received a duplicate of all the papers which you sent this morning, the petition respecting the marine hospital excepted.

If you do not choose to send a special message, I may send the papers (excepting the petitions to yourself) to the land committee, of which Boyle is chairman; and they may act as they think proper.

I do not like much the idea of creating a special court for deciding the question of the Batture. If we give our right to the corporation, they may afterwards fight it with the courts as they please.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 10th March, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

An Act to extend the terms of credit on certain revenue bonds, which passed both Houses nine days ago, should be sent immediately to the collectors. But on application to the office of Secretary of State, it was answered that it had not yet been deposited there. I wish also to have the new supplementary Embargo Act as soon as it is signed. It would save time if it was sent to me to be transcribed for the printer before it is deposited in the State Department.

On reading Baldwin’s letter respecting the supposed movements of Burr, it strikes me that the first step should be to inquire at Amboy respecting Arnauts generally, the vessel said to be commanded by one of them, in which B. is said to have sailed, or any other vessel which may have sailed for Orleans since the 1st of January. (The Orleans files of papers to be also examined, to see the arrival of any vessel commanded by Arnaut.) We have there a collector, named Manning, the only Republican of note in the vicinity. I presume from his recommendations that he may be trusted as far as relates to general or official inquiries.

If anything further be wanted, particularly if it shall be found that John B. Arnaut has a house there, a special agent may be sent. If they can be legally obtained from their chimney recess, it would be important to get the papers. The next step would be to communicate to Claiborne, and perhaps to our register, Thompson, who is the colonel of militia in Opelousas. But the mail is very slow and not very safe. I presume that a writ may be obtained from Ohio grounded on the indictment, by which Burr may be arrested anywhere and brought back to trial.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

March 11, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

The Act concerning revenue bonds was presented to me the night before last, signed yesterday, and will be deposited to-day. After an Act is passed, the clerk enrolls, and the committee examine and report it at their leisure. They then keep them till they have others, so as to make one job only of the presenting them to me. Those delays occasion often a considerable interval between the passage of a law and the depositing it in the Secretary of State’s office. The amendatory embargo law is not come to me. I propose a consultation whether we should not give notice to the merchants that on a certain day they may despatch a vessel in ballast to La Vera Cruz, another to Laguayra, &c., to bring home their property, and that no other will ever be permitted afterwards. Whether we might send a sloop of war to bring their cash may be a question. Affectionate salutations.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

March 11, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

I have this moment received the embargo law, but I do not sign it till I have returned it to the committee to correct three errors of enrolment, one of which is material. This I can put off to to-morrow morning. In the mean time you can have it copied as if signed and dated to-morrow, March 12; only be so good as to let me have it again this evening or to-morrow morning.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

March 13, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

There have been several appointments of marshal to North Carolina, all of whom have refused to accept. West has acted till lately, merely to give us time to procure one, and he has recommended a man about whom Mr. Macon and Turner have written and will get an answer in a fortnight. In the mean time an addition of 400 D. to their emoluments may induce acceptance. Peppin’s application appears unauthorized, but may he not go in some of the vessels going for property to some other port? I received many petitions yesterday, all proposing to send their own vessels. I imagine they will come in bales every day. I understand there is scarcely a merchant in the United States who has not property somewhere beyond sea. We must have a consultation soon on this subject, and another very important one. Affectionate salutations.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, March 16, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The 7th Section of the Embargo Act seems to require the adoption of some general rule for its execution.

The President is authorized to grant permission, &c., if he shall be satisfied by the proofs exhibited that the parties had property of value in any port, &c.

Three questions arise on that section:

1. Are the words is authorized imperative? or do they leave a discretion even in those cases where the President is satisfied that the parties had property abroad? If the words be imperative, the President has no discretion in that respect, and must grant permission, provided he is satisfied of the other fact. If they are not imperative, and leave a discretion, what principles shall be adopted in refusing or granting permission?

I incline to the opinion that the words are imperative.

2. What proofs shall satisfy the President that the property is abroad as stated? The words are: “statement or account current on oath, or such other proof as the nature of the case will admit or the President may require.” From those expressions it seems that the President has full power to decide on the species of proof. Can any general rule be adopted, or shall each case stand on its own ground? I will only observe that if in a single instance we admit the statement of the party on his own oath, without any other proof, it must be admitted in all cases, as it would be invidious to discriminate between characters.

3. Property of value. To what sum shall this be fixed? I think that the only rule will be to grant permission for tonnage in proportion to the value and nature of such property. Thus, if a man has ten thousand (10,000) dollars, which can be remitted only in rum, he may be allowed a vessel of such tonnage as would carry 10,000 dollars’ worth of rum. Several men having property in the same place may unite when the property of each would not be sufficient to load a vessel.

But on that point the question may arise, whether we will permit the importation of any articles in payment of the property abroad. I think that we cannot, as the law now stands, refuse it. Yet the effect on the embargo system will be very different, according to the principle adopted on that point. Thus, it has been stated that Jamaica owes at this moment 2,000,000 dollars to New York alone. But suppose it to be only one million. Three or four fast sailing vessels would be sufficient to bring that property in specie; but supposing it to be brought half in sugar and half in rum, it would require seven or eight thousand tons of shipping, or about 40 ships of 200 tons. You have mentioned that you wanted a consultation on the subject, and I have thrown those hints for the purpose of previously bringing the questions before you. As we are oppressed with applications, it is desirable that you should form a determination as soon as possible.

The remainder of the section consists of provisos, which may be executed by the collectors. The act and copy of a circular are enclosed.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

March 30, 1808.

A bill supplementary to the several Acts for laying an embargo on vessels, &c.

For vessels coming down rivers, &c.—Be it enacted, &c., that it shall not be lawful for any vessel laden with provisions or lumber to pass by or depart from any port of entry of the United States without examination and a special license from the collector of the customs of such port; nor shall any vessel be so laden on any part of the coasts or shores of the United States without the limits of any port of entry until previously examined by some person authorized by the nearest collector of the customs, and a special license from the said collector to be so laden, and to depart according to her lawful destination, on pain of incurring the same penalties and forfeitures as if the said lading had been exported contrary to the tenor of the Acts for laying an embargo, &c. And it shall be lawful for all officers of the revenue and of the armed vessels of the United States to bring to and examine all vessels suspected to be laden with provisions or lumber, and to have departed, or to be about to depart, without having obtained such license, and on examination and probable grounds to seize and place the same under a due course of legal inquiry.

For Passamaquoddy and St. Mary’s, and the secret coves and inlets of the coast.—And be it further enacted, &c., that wheresoever, in any port or on the coasts or shores of the United States elsewhere, a collection of provisions or of lumber shall be made or making which is suspected to be intended for exportation contrary to the provisions of the said laws for laying an embargo, it shall be lawful for the collector of the same port, or of the nearest port, by any agent to be appointed by him, to have the same deposited, if provisions, in warehouses to be approved by him, and to be duly secured by lock, the key of which shall remain with such agent; or if lumber, then to be placed under a sufficient guard by day and night, the expense of which shall be paid by the owner of such lumber, or be levied by sale of a sufficient part thereof; and not to permit the said provisions or lumber to be removed but to such other places, and on such conditions, as shall in his judgment sufficiently guard against their being exported contrary to the provisions of the said Acts. And the said collectors and agents shall in all cases within the purview of this Act be governed by such regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approbation of the President of the United States, in all matters of detail necessary for preventing the evasion of this law and for carrying the same into effectual execution.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

The above is a very imperfect sketch (for I am not in a condition to think attentively) of what your better knowledge of the subject will enable you [to] prepare for preventing the evasions of the law at Passamaquoddy, St. Mary’s, and everywhere else as to provisions and lumber. If you will prepare something on these or any other ideas you like better, Mr. Eppes will give them to Mr. Newton (or you can enclose them to him yourself), and he will push them through the House. Affectionate salutations.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 1st April, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I do not believe that any principle short of that proposed in the bill I have sketched will cut off the evasions at Passamaquoddy.

No consideration, however, should induce us to propose a measure not strictly constitutional. But although the objection has been made, it does not appear to me that that provision is liable to it. By the Constitution, no preference is to be given to the ports of one State above those of another State. But it does not prohibit giving a preference to some ports of one State above others in the same State. And Congress has in their system of laws perpetually acted on that principle. Thus, some ports are only ports of delivery, where no vessel can unload without having previously entered, and, in some cases, touched at another port called a port of entry. Numerous ports by nature are not even ports of delivery by law, but can receive goods only after they have been landed at the port of entry or delivery. Amongst even the ports of entry, there are some into which foreign vessels are not admitted, and others which can receive only vessels from this side of the Cape of Good Hope. Provided there was in each State at least one port to which all those united advantages were given, the Constitution has been considered as fulfilled. Thus, in Georgia, Savannah is the only one which admits vessels from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. I think that your alteration No. 2 could not pass; at all events, it would be very oppressive, and in its exceptions very embarrassing to us. The words “in conformity with treaty” were introduced only to limit with precision the extent of the permission; but they may be omitted, and an instruction given to the collector. I return the bill and your notes, that you may give it the direction which you had suggested.

Mr. Simms’s letter points out other evasions, which can be radically removed only by substituting a special bond with condition to land in all cases where the general bond is now allowed. We have no collector at Bridgetown, N.J.; and I enclose a recommendation. We have no marshal in North Carolina, and cannot even arrest the infractors of the embargo.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

EMBARGO. SKETCH OF A BILL.

1st Sect.—Intended to provide against evasions at Passamaquoddy and St. Mary’s.

2d Sect.—To permit the exportation from Michilimackinac of furs and peltry belonging to British Indian traders. They have a right by treaty so to trade and export. By the embargo, their vessels, canoes, &c., can carry nothing away.

Note.—The first section, as proposed by the President, is already provided for. The second section is, I think, less efficient than the first of this, and perhaps more objectionable. To which add that there are no warehouses at Passamaquoddy.

Sect. 1.—Be it enacted

That no ship or vessel having any cargo whatever on board shall, during the continuance of the Act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, be allowed to depart from any port of the United States for any other port or district of the United States adjacent to the territories, colonies, or provinces of a foreign nation; nor shall any clearance be furnished to any ship or vessel bound as aforesaid without the special permission of the President of the United States. And if any ship or vessel shall, contrary to the provisions of this Act, proceed to any port or district adjacent to the territories, colonies, or provinces of a foreign nation, such ship or vessel with her cargo shall be wholly forfeited; and if the same shall not be seized, the owner, owners, agents, factors, and freighters of such ship or vessel shall for every such offence forfeit and pay

and the master and commander of such ship or vessel, as well as all other persons who shall knowingly be concerned in such prohibited voyage, shall each respectively forfeit and pay

for every such offence,

whether the vessel be seized or not.

Sect. 2.—And be it further enacted

That nothing in the Act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, or in the several Acts supplementary thereto, or in the Act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, shall be construed to prevent the exportation by land or inland navigation of furs and peltries the property of subjects of Great Britain, and by them purchased from the Indians dwelling within the territories of the United States, from said territories to those of Great Britain; nor the importation by land or inland navigation from the territories of Great Britain into those of the United States of any merchandise the property of British subjects and by them imported for the use of the Indians aforesaid within the territories of the United States.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

April 2, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

On the amendments to the embargo law I am perfectly satisfied with whatever you have concluded on after consideration of the subject. My view was only to suggest for your consideration, having not at all made myself acquainted with the details of that law. I therefore return you your bill, and wish it to be proposed. I will this day nominate Elmer. The delegates of North Carolina expect daily to receive information on the subject of a marshal. Is the register’s office at New Orleans vacant? Claiborne says it is, and strongly recommends Robertson, the secretary. He will be found one of the most valuable men we have brought into the public service, for integrity, talents, and amiability. Affectionate salutations.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Department Treasury, May 5, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I do not perceive any alteration necessary in the letter,1 except that the governors do not generally know who are the importers of flour; shipments of that article, particularly to the southward, being commonly made by merchants residing in Northern ports. Perhaps it would be better that the governors should merely state from time to time the quantity of flour which may be wanted, directing such certificate to the Treasury, and not to the collector; but adding, if they choose, the port whence to be shipped, and the names of shippers. The great objection is, that whether left to the governors or to the collectors, it is giving them the power of creating a monopoly in favor of certain individuals. How to remedy that I do not know.

The letter, if written, should be extended to the governors of Georgia and New Hampshire. Indeed, Rhode Island and Connecticut do not raise the wheat necessary for their consumption. It would operate more powerfully as a check on the collectors if I was permitted to communicate to them the letter or its substance. Will you have the goodness to let me know which, and in what shape?

I enclose three applications for New Orleans. As I have not yet received the statements from the collectors in relation to them, it would be premature to decide. But I wish to have your general ideas on them, principally as to the articles of shipchandlery, which, as well as soap, tallow, butter, cheese, and lard, is generally imported from the Atlantic ports.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

Other articles besides flour may be detained, which the States written to would want.

What shall I do with E. Livingston, whose arrival here may be daily expected, as you will see by the enclosed letter from Dallas?

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

May 6, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

In the outset of the business of detentions, I think it impossible to form precise rules. After a number of cases shall have arisen, they may probably be thrown into groups and subjected to rules. The great leading object of the Legislature was, and ours in execution of it ought to be, to give complete effect to the embargo laws. They have bidden agriculture, commerce, navigation, to bow before that object, to be nothing when in competition with that. Finding all their endeavors at general rules to be evaded, they finally gave us the power of detention as the panacea, and I am clear we ought to use it freely, that we may by a fair experiment know the power of this great weapon, the embargo. Therefore, to propositions to carry flour or other provisions into the Chesapeake, the Delaware, the Hudson, and other exporting places, we should say boldly it is not wanted there for consumption, and the carrying it there is too suspicious to be permitted. In consequence of the letters to the governors of the flour-importing States, we may also say boldly that there being no application from the governor is a proof it is not wanting in those States, and therefore must not be carried. As to shuffling of cotton, tobacco, flaxseed, tar, &c., from one port to another, it may be some trifling advantage to individuals to change their property out of one form into another, but it is not of a farthing’s benefit to the nation at large, and risks their great object in the embargo. The want of these at a particular place should be very notorious to the collector and others to take off suspicion of illicit intentions. Dry goods of Europe, coal, bricks, &c., are articles entirely without suspicion. I hazard these things for your consideration, and I send you a copy of the letter to the governors, which may be communicated in form to the collectors, to strengthen the ground of suspicion. You will be so good as to decide these cases yourself, without forwarding them to me. Wherever you are clear either way, so decide. Where you are doubtful, consider me as voting for detention, being satisfied that individuals ought to yield their private interests to this great public object.

Should Mr. Brent, of Nanjemoy, resign, appoint the successor recommended by J. T. Mason, or any other you please. I thought Dr. — was to have recommended a Republican for Vienna. If he does not, let a commission issue for John Ennals. If Mr. Livingston’s business is the Batture, he may be told that we believe the public right so good that we think it our duty to keep it out of the possession of any adversary claimant until the Legislature shall decide, which they will probably do, or provide for, at the next session. If you can possibly have him arrested here for his public debt, the opportunity ought not to be lost. I really think it would be well to recommend to every collector to consider every shipment of provisions, lumber, flaxseed, tar, cotton, tobacco, &c., enumerating the articles, as sufficiently suspicious for detention and reference here. Accept my affectionate salutations and adieux.

P.S.—The post for Monticello leaves this every Tuesday at 3 p.m. and Friday 5 p.m. I return in a month.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 10th May, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I enclose printed copies of the two last circulars respecting the embargo.

The only points requiring your decision which have occurred are the following:

1. Governor Harrison’s application to rent a lead-mine. If acceded to, what must be the terms? On account of the greater distance, those given to John Brown, of Kentucky, might not be acceptable to Harrison.

2. The revenue cutter of Savannah has been declared not to be seaworthy; she was an old galley. Your approbation for selling her and purchasing a new one is wanted.

3. Shee and McColloch recommend that the regular trading vessels to New Orleans, which act like packets and belong to persons of whom there is no suspicion, may be permitted generally to go and take cargoes, excepting only provisions and lumber, which are the only dangerous articles, for the West Indies.

Young Rittenhouse, who has brought Armstrong’s last despatches, and left Amsterdam on 24th March, says that there was no expectation there of our continuing the embargo; but the idea with our bankers and other well-informed merchants was that we would declare war against England, or that France, if we did not, would declare war against us. Holland, without any commerce left since the last decrees and our embargo, is in a deplorable state; her finances verging towards bankruptcy; the French every day more unpopular. The general opinion there was that Bonaparte intended the crown of Spain for himself. If true, is it not premature in him? and does he not run the risk of losing all her colonies? Will not Great Britain in that case take possession of Cuba? And what effect would that revolution have on our present situation in relation with both parties? If Bonaparte has such project at heart, I think that in almost every point of view the result must be favorable to us. The occupation of Cuba by either France or England and the transfer of our quarrel about Louisiana boundaries to France would be the only drawbacks.1

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Washington, 16th May, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I enclose the application of Fanning, Coles, and others to send a vessel in ballast, on account of a new question on which I have doubts. Those gentlemen have, with much perseverance and enterprise, discovered a large quantity of sandal-wood on one of the Friendly Islands, in the Pacific Ocean. One cargo they took to China, and have brought the proceeds within a few days. They had previously heard from their captain that he had left between two and three hundred tons, being the residue of what the island can afford, on the island, and had made their application through Dr. Mitchell in time. They have received permission to send the ship to the island and bring the wood here. But they wish for permission to take it to China, which is its only market, and where it will fetch about one hundred thousand dollars, and to bring a cargo as usual from that country. And they represent that almost all the expense consisting in the length of the voyage and freight, a double voyage of twelve months each would consume all the profits. As their characters are perfectly fair, and indeed friendly, as the voyage is attended at this time with less danger to the vessel and seamen than to a belligerent port, as the English will get the wood if they do not take it within eighteen months from last September, and as the sale of the wood seems necessary in order to effect the object of bringing the property home, I would have had no hesitation in granting the request, had it not been for the expressions (in the 7th Section of the Act of 12th March, which gives the power) “that such vessel shall not during the voyage be engaged in any traffic, freighting, or other employment.” Selling the wood in China and taking a cargo in exchange is traffic. But was it intended by the law to exclude any traffic whatever, or only any traffic other than that necessary to bring the property or its proceeds to the United States? The parties wait for your decision.

The two enclosed letters from Passamaquoddy and Sacket’s Harbor are sent for information. The collector of Passamaquoddy is, as you will perceive, a very bad writer, but he is a man of great integrity, zeal, and activity, and full reliance may be placed on his facts as on his exertions. I write to the district attorney of Maine to proceed or to send a lawyer to Passamaquoddy for the purpose of collecting evidence and taking all the necessary steps for prosecuting the agents there and their employers in other seaports.

Sacket has resigned, I believe, from fear, or at least from a wish not to lose his popularity with the people. It is a fact that large quantities, particularly of potash, have arrived at Montreal from his district, which extends along the St. Lawrence from the Canada line to Lake Ontario. I have written to Governor Tompkins for a successor. I believe that the prohibitions laid on the coasting trade by your last instructions are too severe, and must be somewhat relaxed where it can be done without danger. I will prepare something to that effect for your consideration. Please to return the letters.1

With sincere respect and attachment, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

Monticello, May 16, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Since writing my letter of yesterday, I have prepared the draft of a circular to the governors not before addressed, under which I mean to cover the printed copies of that of May 6, which I have requested you to send me. This draft I enclose for your persual. I salute you affectionately.

[Enclosure.]

Sir,—

The numerous and bold evasions of the several embargo laws threatened altogether to defeat the great and interesting objects for which they were adopted, and principally under cover of the coasting trade. Congress, therefore, finding insufficient all attempts to bind unprincipled adventures by general rules, at length gave a discretionary power to detain absolutely all vessels suspected of intentions to evade the embargo laws, wheresoever bound. In order to give to this law the effect it intended, we find it necessary to consider every vessel as suspicious which has on board any articles of domestic produce in demand at foreign markets, and most especially provisions. But as some of the States do not raise a sufficiency of these articles for their own consumption, I addressed to their governors a circular letter, of which the enclosed is a copy. To those whose States, ordinarily, produce a sufficiency within themselves I did not address a copy. But should any extraordinary deficiency render a supply necessary, in the judgment of your Excellency, for the internal consumption of your State, your certificates, given as desired in the enclosed circular, will be effectual for obtaining the necessary supplies. Your own sense of the importance of giving full effect to this measure, and of preventing its being perverted into a mere sacrifice of the worthy to the unprincipled portion of society, will, I am sure, engage your watchfulness over every part of the transactions arising under your authorization. I salute your Excellency with great consideration and respect.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Washington, May 23, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The enclosed letter from Mr. Woolsey contains our last accounts from Lake Champlain; and that from Mr. Astor the amount of supplies expected in Canada from Champlain and St. Lawrence. I fear that the want of energy and resignation of Sacket will facilitate the evasions in the last district. On Champlain I believe that everything that could be done has been done.

The mail travels so slowly from Passamaquoddy that my last official accounts reach only to the 28th of last month, when the opposition appeared still stronger; the revenue boats having been fired at in the night and open violations continuing to take place. It must have been still more difficult in any degree to carry the law into effect subsequent to that date, as by return vessels it appears that between 2d and 7th May there were entered 19,000 barrels flour, 4000 do. pork, 4000 do. naval stores, &c. The people are paid by the British or disaffected, and no assistance to be expected until the arrival of the Wasp, which sailed from New York on 7th inst. Be that as it may, all the evil which can accrue, both there and on the Champlain, is now at an end, and all we have to watch is our common coasting trade.

There is one species of evasions against which there can be no guard but in the watchfulness of our collectors and officers. I mean loading secretly and departing without clearance; and I think that we have little to fear from any other quarter. The great violations which have heretofore taken place have been either on the frontier districts, or in the sailing of vessels before the penalties were enforced. Of this I have a clear proof in the return of vessels arrived at Havana from the United States till the 11th ultimo, and deposited by our consul in the Department of State. I have analyzed it; and taking two periods of forty-two days each, the first from 17th January to 28th February, and the other from 1st March to 11th April, I find that forty-three vessels arrived from the United States during the first period, and only four during the last, one of which was in ballast, and only one had flour; an evident proof that the embargo operates, and that since the penalties were enacted and the second supplementary Act was passed the evasions (those on the British lines excepted) have been less than we had apprehended.

From that view of the subject I have been induced to believe that the system of licenses by the governors was unnecessary; and permit me to add that it will, I think, be less efficient than our own regulations. For we transfer thereby a limited discretion, which was vested in collectors responsible to ourselves and subject to our continual control, to men not under our control, afraid of clamor and of popularity, and transfer it without any limitation. The best mode certainly would have been, if recourse must be had to the governors, merely to call on them for information. Knowing Governors Sullivan and Charles Pinckney as we do, we can have no confidence in the last, and must rest assured that the other will refuse no certificates. They begin already to arrive, and for large quantities. Disliking the mode, and extremely desirous that some less liable to abuse and to charge of favoritism might be substituted, at least that it might not be extended to the other governors, I have carefully examined the subject, and think that I have formed a way which will, without apparent retractation, afford necessary supplies in such a manner as to render abuses almost impossible, and, at all events, do away the necessity of writing to other governors. You will find it in the annexed circular, which I wrote last Friday. Indeed, it became utterly impossible to decide on the multiplied applications and references instead of adopting some general rule; the clamor against, and unpopularity of the absolute restrictions were increasing; and you may indeed rely upon it as a fact that the consumption of articles from other States and, in some instances, dependence on such importations was infinitely beyond what you had imagined. I will mention a single instance. The greater part of the South Carolina sea-coast and the whole of Georgia have, since the increased cultivation of cotton, abandoned that of corn, and depend entirely on importations from North Carolina and Virginia. By confining, as I have done, the value of the provisions transported to one-eighth part of the amount of the bond, there can be no temptation to carry away the article. Indeed, there is not, I believe, one instance of a regular trading vessel between two ports having violated the embargo, under the usual bonds. But this new limitation added to the penalties which may be recovered by the law, independent of the bond, places us on a much safer footing, and at the same time much less exceptionable, than the permission from the governors, under which whole cargoes of provisions will be perpetually transported, and that, perhaps, done by persons who have violated the embargo without the knowledge of the governors.

Excuse, I pray, the incorrectness and hurry of this letter. I have had more to write than at any former period, and, although wanting some relaxation, it is as yet impossible for me to be absent even for a week.1

With sincere respect and attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Washington, 28th May, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The enclosed letters from Lake Champlain show that we have not been properly supported by the people, and that the love of gain and British agency had rendered the stoppage of intercourse so unpopular that even Sailly and other truly friendly characters were afraid to act. I have, of course, written to the district attorney to institute prosecutions, &c. But although the waters are low, and nothing more can be done this summer in a large way, I think, considering the temper there, and the necessity of having the laws respected, that a company of regulars and two armed gunboats will be necessary on the lake near the line. It may with truth be said that this is proper, on account of the Canadians, who did in fact carry away by force two of the rafts.

E. Mounger, collector of Savannah, having resigned, I send recommendations in favor of R. Wall, the naval officer, as successor. They seem sufficient. If he is appointed, a vacancy will arise in his own office, for which there are two candidates, of whom I know nothing but what the letters state.

We begin, with the help of my last circular, to do better with the embargo. Unless an absolute and general rule be given to the collectors, they never act with uniformity, which was the case in this respect. Governor Sullivan dares not refuse flour certificates. One mail alone brought me permits for eleven thousand barrels, exclusively of corn and rye meal; as we must let those go at all events and without restriction, there is really more danger from that quarter than from any other. I intend to take my children northwardly on Tuesday next, and to be back about ten days after. I wanted myself a little respite; but the business of the office had not till this time permitted me to be absent.

I have on file about twenty applications for permission to send vessels in ballast, which I have concluded to keep till your return. You will receive one from a Mr. Mansfield in behalf of Mr. Lee, consul at Bordeaux, which is not supported by the species of proofs which have been required, and, as I think, is a mere speculation.

With great respect and sincere attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 15th July, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Governor Sullivan’s certificates received at the Treasury to this day amount to 49,800 barrels of flour, 99,400 bushels of corn, 560 tierces of rice, and 2000 bushels of rye; and in addition thereto he has given certificates giving permission for either 7450 barrels of flour or 30,000 bushels of corn; so that the whole quantity of flour may be 57,250 barrels, and the whole quantity of corn may be 129,400 bushels. Amongst the certificates I am told that some are for persons resident in Alexandria or Georgetown, of whom he could know nothing.

Governor Langdon has given four certificates for so many cargoes of flour, say 4000 barrels, and two certificates each for a cargo of rice. No certificates have been transmitted by the other governors. I have read the papers relative to the collector of New Bedford, and think that he must be dismissed.

I think that it would be useful that you should write to Mr. Robert Smith, suggesting that during the summer all the gunboats actually manned and in commission should be distributed through a greater number of ports and bays to assist the embargo, and that he would confer with me on the subject on my passage through Baltimore. I have letters from Newport, Portland, Machias, Nantucket, Matthias Vineyard, &c., &c., on the subject.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, 27th July, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Towards the end of the last session of Congress, and after your interview with Hoge on the subject of the Western road, I had suggested that from respect to the State of Pennsylvania, and considering the manner also in which the subject had been treated last winter in the Legislature of that State, it would be expedient to instruct the commissioners to survey and locate from Brownsville westwardly, both to Wheeling and through Washington to some other spot on the Ohio, reporting both surveys to you for your determination. It was my impression that you had acquiesced, and would instruct the commissioners to that effect. I find, however, that it has not been done, and I seriously fear the consequences at this time. Did I not believe the course which I have mentioned to be perfectly proper, I certainly would not recommend it merely on account of those consequences. Permit me, however, to state that the county of Washington, with which I am well acquainted, having represented it six years in Congress, gives a uniform majority of about 2000 votes in our favor, and that if this be thrown, by reason of this road, in a wrong scale, we will infallibly lose the State of Pennsylvania at the next election; for the imprudent steps taken there seem unavoidably to lead to three distinct electoral tickets. I have been reminded of this subject by the enclosed letter from an influential and steady Republican of that county. And as it respects the road itself, I will add, 1st, that a thorough examination seems due to the law of the State; 2d, that the difference in point of distance will be even less than stated in the enclosed letter, if the Ohio be struck at Short Creek instead of Wheeling,—say about ½ mile to any given point, westwardly, Cincinnati, or any other; 3d, that the important part of this Western road terminates at Brownsville, on the Monongahela, and that its continuation, which is sufficient to agitate all that country, will never require much expense, as it will be only a travelling and not a transportation road. Indeed, the question, as it relates to the public interest, is in every respect so extremely insignificant, that I am very desirous that it should not be permitted to do much positive evil.

Will you have the goodness to consider the subject? And if you approve, I can write to the commissioners to make the examination of both routes for your decision.1

With sincere respect and attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, 29th July, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I sent yesterday to the Secretary of the Navy, and he will transmit to you, a letter from General Dearborn, and another from General Lincoln, showing the violations of the embargo. As these are now effected by vessels which go off without clearances, with intention either of putting their loads on board of vessels at sea, chiefly British, or of sailing over to Nova Scotia or the West Indies, the danger is much greater from New York northwardly, principally from Massachusetts, than from either the Delaware, Chesapeake, or North Carolina. This arises from the proximity of the Northern seaports to the sea, which enables them to be at sea in two hours from the time they leave the wharf, from the vicinity of Nova Scotia, and from the number of British vessels hovering for that purpose between that colony and Massachusetts. There are some, also, in Long Island Sound, and amongst the islands between Nantucket and Rhode Island. The Senate did, by an amendment, confine to districts adjacent to foreign territories the power of seizing deposits of provisions, &c., which the House had, on my suggestion, made general, and which, connected with the authority of detaining vessels ostensibly bound coastwise, would have given us much additional security. But now the collectors cannot seize any articles, though placed in the most suspicious and remote places, nor even on board of vessels remaining or apparently intended to remain in harbor (Passamaquoddy and other districts adjacent to foreign territories only excepted); and where they have attempted it suits are commenced against them. Mr. Gelston here, cautious as he is, has nerve and zeal, and has made several doubtful seizures, for which he is sued. But we cannot expect that the collectors generally will risk all they are worth in doubtful cases; and it results that, until Congress meets, we must depend entirely on force for checking this manner of violating the law. I have requested Mr. Smith to send northwardly all the force that can be spared either in gunboats or cruising vessels; and I have, presuming on your approbation, which I now request, directed General Lincoln to sell the small cutter and to purchase and man one fitted for the present exigencies. I contemplate a similar arrangement for the New London and Portsmouth cutters, so as to obtain in all three good cruisers on that coast exclusively of the vessels belonging to the navy, and request you will authorize me to make that and any other similar alteration in the cutter establishment which may be wanted.

On the Lakes we are in no better situation. I have sent a blank commission for the collectorship of Sacket’s Harbor, and new instructions to all the collectors, and will send a proper person, for whom I am now inquiring, to examine strictly the conduct of all those officers, give proper directions, inquire whether any further removals be necessary, and obtain the names of the infractors in order to institute suits. But want of efficiency in the law at first, and of energy in the collectors on Lake Ontario afterwards, have, together with avarice and the open encouragement by Federalists, organized opposition in that quarter to a degree which will probably baffle all our endeavors. Nothing but force on land (for there the collectors have the right to seize property on shore) will put a stop to the violations. As to judiciary redress there is very little hope. For, a few days ago, a Republican jury, notwithstanding the charge of Judge Sailly and the efforts of the attorney, have refused to find bills against the Canadians made prisoners after resistance on board one of the rafts which they were forcibly carrying away across the line on Lake Champlain.

The recruiting service cannot, scattered as it is throughout the United States, procure shortly many men for that quarter; and it is not improbable that you will still be obliged to call out militia in that quarter.

With those difficulties we must struggle as well as we can this summer; but I am perfectly satisfied that if the embargo must be persisted in any longer, two principles must necessarily be adopted in order to make it sufficient: 1st, that not a single vessel shall be permitted to move without the special permission of the Executive; 2d, that the collectors be invested with the general power of seizing property anywhere, and taking the rudders or otherwise effectually preventing the departure of any vessel in harbor, though ostensibly intended to remain there; and that without being liable to personal suits. I am sensible that such arbitrary powers are equally dangerous and odious. But a restrictive measure of the nature of the embargo applied to a nation under such circumstances as the United States cannot be enforced without the assistance of means as strong as the measure itself. To that legal authority to prevent, seize, and detain must be added a sufficient physical force to carry it into effect; and although I believe that in our seaports little difficulty would be encountered, we must have a little army along the Lakes and British lines generally. With that result we should not perhaps be much astonished. For the Federalists having at least prevented the embargo from becoming a measure generally popular, and the people being distracted by the complexity of the subject, orders of council, decrees, embargoes, and wanting a single object which might rouse their patriotism and unite their passions and affections, selfishness has assumed the reins in several quarters, and the people are now there altogether against the law.

In such quarters the same thing happens which has taken place everywhere else, and even under the strongest governments under similar circumstances. The navy of Great Britain is hardly sufficient to prevent smuggling; and you recollect, doubtless, the army of employés and the sanguinary code of France,—hardly adequate to guard their land frontiers.

That in the present situation of the world every effort should be attempted to preserve the peace of this nation cannot be doubted. But if the criminal party-rage of Federalists and Tories shall have so far succeeded as to defeat our endeavors to obtain that object by the only measure that could possibly have effected it, we must submit and prepare for war. I am so much overwhelmed even here with business and interruptions, that I have not time to write correctly or even with sufficient perspicuity; but you will guess at my meaning where it is not sufficiently clear. I mean generally to express an opinion founded on the experience of this summer, that Congress must either invest the Executive with the most arbitrary powers and sufficient force to carry the embargo into effect, or give it up altogether. And in this last case I must confess that, unless a change takes place in the measures of the European powers, I see no alternative but war. But with whom? This is a tremendous question if tested only by policy; and so extraordinary is our situation that it is equally difficult to decide it on the ground of justice, the only one by which I wish the United States to be governed. At all events, I think it the duty of the Executive to contemplate that result as probable, and to be prepared accordingly.1

I remain, with great respect, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, 5th August, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I forgot to enclose in my last the letters from Barnstable and Boston respecting the violations of the embargo; they are now enclosed. I have not heard whether the Navy Department had, after receiving General Dearborn’s and my letter, made any arrangements to send cruising vessels and gunboats to the northward.

The enclosed letter from Mr. Woolsey gives a better account of the violations along our northern line than we had yet received; and it is important in other respects, particularly as relates to the force at Montreal and vicinity.

Colonel Wynne complains, in his enclosed letter, of what is in fact the result of Collector Tredwell’s strictness in complying with instructions. I have always feared that North Carolina would be shaken by the embargo; and the nature of their cargoes, all suspicious articles (provisions, naval stores, and lumber), renders the general measures adopted to prevent frauds more oppressive than elsewhere. Yet how to discriminate I do not know.

I have complied with your directions respecting the Chinese, and he has engaged Astor’s vessel, to whom we had on general grounds refused permission. Had I had any discretion as to the application itself, I would have hesitated; for I apprehend that there is some speculation at bottom, and every deviation from the general rules is considered as favoritism and excites dissatisfaction.

On the Spanish business it may be premature to form conjectures in its relations with ourselves and with its probable effect on the conduct of the belligerent powers. I think, however, that we may take it for granted that the colonies will, under any possible result in Spain, be in alliance with England and at war with France during the remainder of the maritime war. Judging of the feelings of our nation by our own, we may also safely infer that the cause of a nation trying to assert its independence will be popular in the United States, and that France will in proportion become still more unpopular. There is one point to which perhaps immediate attention should be paid. It is possible that in the course of events it may very soon become indispensable, to prevent a greater evil, that we should occupy at least that part of Florida which we had claimed, viz., Baton Rouge and Mobile; and we ought, I think, to be ready on the spot for such a contingency, which, if it takes place, will probably leave no room for delay.1

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, August 6, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I have received yours of 29th ult.,1 and will examine the question of increasing the bond. I will only observe that I would have thought an order to the collectors to limit the cargoes of provisions to one-eighth of the bond illegal, and that I only wrote to them that when they did not exceed that proportion I did not perceive that there could be any ground of suspicion. This was written as a modification of the letter of May, accompanying copies of yours to the governors, and which was construed so as to prevent the exportation of provisions in all cases where the governor’s certificate was not obtained. I would have preferred not to have written at all to the governors, and to have left the coasting trade on the footing of my first circular of 29th April, which you thought not strict enough. It is, however, certain that, with the exception of Governor Sullivan’s certificates, the mode which you directed has been perfectly efficacious on the sea-coast. No evasions can now take place worthy of notice under color of the coasting trade. The embargo is now defeated, as I have already mentioned, by open violations, by vessels sailing without any clearances whatever; an evil which, under the existing law, we cannot oppose in any way but by cruisers.

I have this day received a letter from Mr. Smith mentioning that he had given the necessary orders to that effect.

A new attempt is also made to prevent detention through the medium of State courts, which you will find stated in the enclosed letter from the collector of Newport. I have in my answer directed him to pay no obedience to such efforts to defeat the law, as the State courts have no shadow of jurisdiction in such cases. Still, this increases our difficulties, and I deeply regret to see my incessant efforts in every direction to carry the law into effect defeated in so many quarters, and that we will probably produce, at least on the British, but an inconsiderable effect by a measure which at the same time threatens to destroy the Republican interest. For there is almost an equal chance that if propositions from Great Britain or other events do not put it in our power to raise the embargo before the 1st of October, we will lose the Presidential election. I think that at this moment the Western States, Virginia, South Carolina, and perhaps Georgia, are the only sound States, and that we will have a doubtful contest in every other. The consciousness of having done what was right in itself is doubtless sufficient, but for the inefficacy of the measure on the Lakes and to the northward there is no consolation; and that circumstance is the strongest argument that can be brought against the measure itself.

The death of General Shee brings on you another difficulty, which the critical situation of Pennsylvania will not tend to lessen. Yet on that ground I will not, nor can I, give any opinion.

For it is, I believe, morally impossible to make an appointment that will not displease some section of the Republicans, and of course do some injury to the Republican interest. I am independent of any considerations of that kind in favor of Captain Jones, because, from his pursuits in life and personal character, I am confident that he is the best qualified. Any other man who has a chance for the appointment will, as his predecessors, be the deputy of his deputy. But this subject is, unfortunately, at this time so connected with the existence of the Republican party in Pennsylvania, that I think it will be best not to be too hasty in filling the place. The deputy, Graff, will do very well till you have full time to investigate.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, August 9, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Governor Tompkins transmits to you a letter from Oswego, announcing an insurrection there. The particulars I know not, as, if the collector has written, his letter has gone to Washington. The accounts are, I presume, somewhat exaggerated; and there is no more insurrection than has been on Lake Champlain or Passamaquoddy; but certainly a forcible violation of the embargo by such combination as prevents the execution of the law and would justify the calling of militia. I had a long conference with the governor, and stated your reluctance to issue another proclamation declaring a part of this State in a state of insurrection. He felt the force of the observation, and declared his willingness to do whatever he could legally and properly do.

I assured him that if he called any militia on this occasion on his own authority the expense would be defrayed by the United States; and I think that it will be necessary that you should give him assurances to the same effect. He proposes—and this would be the most effectual mode—to go himself, as soon as he has received an answer from General Dearborn respecting the fortifications and obstructions here, to Oswego, Sacket’s Harbor, and Champlain. For he observes that the militia officers, if selected at random, may be imprudent or disaffected. Whether you request him to act on his own authority, or issue a proclamation and make a formal requisition of militia, the number may probably be left to his discretion, not exceeding five hundred men in all. In that case I think that one company at each of the following places, Genesee, Oswego, Sacket’s Harbor, Oswegatchie, Lake Champlain, and the residue between the two last-mentioned places, to guard the land roads and the crossing-places of St. Lawrence below the Oswegatchie, will form a proper distribution.

Information of violations along the sea-shore of Massachusetts continues to be received daily. The Wasp, Argus, and Chesapeake have been ordered by the Secretary of the Navy in that quarter. To that force Commodore Rogers has promised to join the Revenge; but I have not been able to obtain more than three gunboats, which is inadequate. I have requested they might be sent to Newport, New Bedford, and Barnstable, and that the Revenge should cruise about the Vineyard, and between Nantucket and Cape Cod; the three large vessels, particularly the Wasp and Argus, to cruise from Cape Cod to Portland, and occasionally eastwardly. This, with the revenue cutters, is all we can do, and of course we must remain satisfied with the result, whatever it may be. To our other difficulties there must be added that the district attorney—Blake—does not seem zealous, or even active, and that we will not recover many penalties. I will write to him to-day, though it is not precisely in my line, and he has not answered a former letter. We have also a bad collector—Pease—at Edgartown on Matthias Vineyard, the largest island between Nantucket and Cape Cod. Is not a Mr. Green the representative for that district? If you know his residence, I will write to him respecting a successor. I presume it must be at Barnstable. It is also reported that in that quarter fishing vessels and vessels permitted to go in ballast abuse their privileges, and carry provisions to the West Indies.

I have as yet, to all applications to send vessels to Europe, Africa, and Asia, given the uniform answer that the President had determined not to grant any permissions, except for the West Indies: this makes the Chinese permission inconvenient. And I enclose for your decision one from the insurance companies of Philadelphia for Cape of Good Hope, which I do not wish, any more than that of Coquerel for Isle of France, to be granted, and which indeed stands on no better foundation than individual applications. But the permission allowed to Punga Wingchong makes individuals desirous of a direct reference to yourself.

I found in my conversation with Governor Tompkins that no order had issued from the War Department for renewing the detachment of 100,000 militia under last year’s law. So that in case of emergency we have not one man besides the regulars in readiness. Although out of my proper business, I cannot help saying that under the circumstances of the country that omission appears wrong, and that orders to that effect ought immediately to be issued by the War Department to every State, in order to have the men in readiness if wanted.

I have inquired also why the delay had taken place in making the cession of ground for obstructions. The governor tells me that that will be done the instant that General Dearborn will have specified where he wants it, which he has not yet done. But you may rely upon it that General Dearborn has pointed out a place where from the depth (96 feet) a plan of obstructions is altogether impracticable. The shallowest part of the channel is the only part where it can be done. I have told General Dearborn where that was, having had the soundings correctly taken last year; but he is bent to the line between his forts, and the consequence is, clearly, that nothing will be done.1

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, August 17, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I return Lowry’s papers. I do not exactly recollect what had passed on the subject, and only remember that there was a statement of facts obtained from the district attorney, in which the species and degree of resistance to the deputy marshal were represented as greater than is done by themselves and Mr. Smith. In every other respect the representation of Mr. Smith is, I think, correct. The conduct of the land companies has uniformly been contrary to the intention and spirit of the law; and I think the decree of the Supreme Court radically wrong, and to have worked a great and extensive injury. It is true that nothing can justify resistance to law. In this instance, however, the parties having suffered a longer imprisonment than was decreed by the court for their offence, and being now detained merely on account of their poverty, which prevents their paying the fine, the case may be proper for the exercise of a pardon remitting only that fine. I would speak more decisively if I had the former papers before me.

The enclosed application of Smissaert, a Batavian consul, to export to Batavia certain copper coins called dutes, necessary in the intercourse with the natives of Java, had been refused verbally in Washington last winter, and is now renewed, with a request to be laid before you, principally, I believe, in order to show to his government that he has done all he could to obtain a permission.

I enclose a letter from the collector of Gloucester (Cape Ann, Massachusetts), together with copies of my answer and of a letter to the district attorney, on the subject of forcible opposition to the embargo. Be pleased to return both the letter and copies. I am verbally informed this morning that still more gross proceedings have taken place at Newburyport,—a vessel having sailed by force under the protection of a large armed mob assembled on the wharf, and who prevented the interference of the custom-house officers. The Argus and Wasp will sail this week for that coast; the Revenge is off Nantucket and Matthias Vineyard; the Chesapeake off Block Island, whence she has already sent eight vessels in. But I could only get four gunboats, one of which is stationed at Newport, one at New Bedford, one south of the Barnstable or Cape Cod Peninsula, and the other will go north of the same peninsula, between Barnstable Bay and Plymouth. Beyond that we have no stationary force but the two revenue cutters of Boston and Portsmouth, and the two Passamaquoddy gunboats. If the Argus and Wasp do not check the illegal sailing of vessels from that coast, and the law proceedings are impotent, we will be placed in an awkward situation, for we cannot much rely on Governor Sullivan’s exertions.

The opposition at Oswego has broken into insurrection, as you will perceive by the enclosed letter from the collector and those you will receive from the governor, who has agreed to send one or two companies of militia, under one of his aids, to be stationed in that district. I have assured him that the expense would be defrayed by the United States, although the militia were called by the State authority, inasmuch as it was at our request and to avoid the proclamation, &c., that it was done. But I do not know how to arrange the details, which belong entirely to the War Department. General Dearborn has referred me for orders to the recruiting-parties to General Wilkinson, to whom I feel some delicacy to give what he may consider as improper interference. I think, therefore, that in addition to what I have written, and may again write, to General Dearborn, it will be necessary that you should, 1, repeat to Governor Tompkins the assurance that the expense of the militia which he has called, or may, according to circumstances, think necessary to call, on the Lakes, will be defrayed by the general government; 2, direct the War Department to make the necessary arrangements for the regular payment and supply of provisions for such militia; and, 3, direct General Wilkinson to order immediately all the recruits in the State of New York, including those in the city, to repair, about ⅓ to Sacket’s Harbor, on Lake Ontario; ⅓ to Oswegatchie, on St. Lawrence; and ⅓ to Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain; in order to assist the collectors in keeping possession of deposits of provisions, potash, &c., and in detaining vessels and boats sailing forcibly. This is all that strikes me at this moment as necessary and within our power, and I wish you to write to those three persons—the governor, General Dearborn, and General Wilkinson—only because your letters will produce more effect than mine would.

Application was made for leave to transport immediately the North Carolina wheat, on which I wrote a circular, in which I have added some relaxations which the situation of that State seemed to require. A copy of that and of sundry letters respecting the Chinese (who has sailed) will be sent to you from Washington.1

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

MADISON TO GALLATIN.

Montpelier, August 19, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The last mail brought me yours of the 9th instant. Not having at hand the regular sources of information on the point to which it refers, I can speak from memory only. The law of nations leaves neutrals free to allow or refuse the sale of prizes, provided the same rule be applied to all the belligerents. The questions, therefore, are what the municipal law here has decided, and how far an Executive decision would be competent; it being understood that treaties furnish no decision. The municipal law, it seems, has made no provision for such a case. The Executive authority does not extend to a restriction, nor even to a definition of the law of nations. It follows that a remedy against the sale of prizes at N. O. can be supplied by Congress alone. Still, if there be any article in any treaty or any law requiring a prohibition of such sales to any one belligerent, or if there be any valid regulation to that effect actually in force, it would be within the exercise at least of Executive authority to extend the prohibition to all other belligerents, on the principle, I presume, that the law of impartiality authorized in the Executive what the duty of neutrality imposed on the nation. I do not recollect precisely what is contained in the French convention on this point, and therefore can make no inference from it. But it runs in my head that there is some unrevoked regulation applicable generally to the sale of prizes. If there be, it must be among the regulations for maintaining our neutral obligations, which were collected some time ago, and copies furnished to the collectors. If you have not already examined them, it may be worth while to do so.

The President has decided, I see, that Turreau be permitted to send his two vessels to France and the West Indies (but not to more distant seas) filled with French subjects who were here at the time of the embargo. You will, I presume, have taken measures accordingly. But, as it may avoid further delay in a case where it is already complained of, I shall desire Mr. Graham to let the President’s determination be known at the Treasury, in order that any provisional arrangements made by you may be expedited.

Not a word has been received from Armstrong since we left Washington. I have a few lines from Pinkney, coming down to the 9th June, which amount to nothing more than that he was in a few days to have an interview with Canning, in which he should press as from himself, and on general grounds, a repeal of the orders, &c., &c. As the interview was presumably of his own seeking, and as the arrival of the St. Michael at L’Orient on her way to England was known, and would furnish, as the Osage did, a good dilatory plea, the interview does not promise much; and the less as the torpor to our affairs will be increased by the animation and hopes excited by those of Spain. If these should become very flattering, it will be in the character of the present Cabinet to raise its tone rather than to revise its errors.

I have just received a petition to the President from merchants in Boston for a removal of the embargo, or a call of Congress for the purpose; and I see that another is on foot, founded on the additional market opened in Spain and expected in Portugal. Such are the malignant manœuvres for vexing the Executive. No efforts of the President could now assemble Congress ten days sooner than the time to which they are adjourned. And to acknowledge the new and local power set up in Spain, and thereby take part in the war against the others, would be an infatuation which the most stupid or the most wicked only could suggest.

Our crops of wheat are but tolerable. The corn-fields promise the most luxuriant crops. The crops of tobacco will not be great, and may be short.

Very sincerely, your friend and servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New Haven, August 23, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

There is one application which I had referred to you, and to which you have given no answer. It is that of one Coquerel, to go to Isle of France; the vessel’s name is either Calypso or Mentor. He had prepared his vessel under an alleged verbal permission of the collector. Both he and his captain have repeatedly called for an answer.

The War Department, in General Dearborn’s absence, suspends the accounts of some New York militia called on the spur of the occasion to enforce the embargo on Lake Champlain without a previous demand for them by the general government. You afterwards sanctioned the measure, and directed me to testify your approbation to Captain Mayo, who had thus turned out without waiting legal orders. This suspension may discourage the well-affected, and renders it necessary that General Dearborn should give orders on that subject, and on that of subsequent calls of militia by Governor Tompkins, to his principal clerk and to the accountant. I enclose a letter from the collector of Niagara, who still mistakes the law, as the boats could not be seized under any of the embargo laws. A copy of my answer will be sent from my office to you. But it is evident that there has been an habitual disregard of our general laws by the British traders, and that they claim, by virtue of the treaty, which only secures the free navigation of the Lakes, a right to enter all our ports there without reporting or fulfilling any other formality.

If this was admitted, they might smuggle as they please, and break with perfect facility every non-importation law.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

I am here only for one day, and return to-morrow to New York.

MADISON TO GALLATIN.

Montpelier, August 31, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Having communicated the enclosed letter from General T. to the President, he concurred in the propriety of asking from you the information on which an answer ought to be founded. I understand from the President that he has explained to you the principles regulating the indulgence allowable to these diplomatic applications. He will acquiesce, however, in giving effect to any misconceived permission under which expense may have been incurred, provided it be not essentially inadmissible. I am sorry for the trouble in which you are involved by these cases, but I can the less avoid giving it, as my memory does not supply the circumstances which I might command at Washington.

I have a letter from Mr. Pinkney of June 22. His expected interview with Mr. C. had not even then taken place; after hearing the arrival of the St. Michael at L’Orient he seems to have been willing to be first possessed of the information conveyed by her, in order to be on even ground with Canning, who had received Erskine’s communications as well by her as by the May packet. He says little on general subjects, and nothing that denotes relaxations on the part of the British government, which indeed was too much occupied and elated with the occurrences in Spain to think of American affairs. He enclosed a copy of Rose’s bill, conformable to his motion, in the newspapers. It takes the place of the expired Act, carrying the treaty of 1794 into execution; consequently leaves the East Indian trade subject to restrictions, which will, I suspect, be imposed, experimentally and politically at least.

What does Canning mean by declaring that no communication whatever had been received from this government subsequent to the return of Mr. R.? Does he really mean to make the public there believe that we are satisfied, and here that we have been neglectful or invidious? Or does he consider nothing worth the name of communication but concessions or overtures from this country? How are we to understand also his assertion that several special messengers had arrived after touching at L’Orient, when in fact one only (by the Osage) had arrived, and who, having left the United States in February, during the negotiations with Rose, and after Erskine’s communication, official though verbal, of the orders in council, could not be expected to be the bearer of more than explanatory communications to Mr. Pinkney? It is a fact, however, that Mr. P. on receiving his despatches glanced at the orders, and declined following up the subject, because he found no good could result from it. Canning also must have received by that conveyance, or probably by a preceding packet, the official, though verbal, remonstrance to Mr. Erskine against the orders in council, which I repeated to him at his own request, for the purpose avowed by him, of transmitting it to his government. After all, if communications, &c., had been received prior to Mr. R.’s return, as seems to be implied, or at least is not denied, how could a failure to repeat them, when no answer had been returned, be construed into the inferences of Mr. C.? There is the more attention due to this part of Canning’s speech, as it appears in several editions of it in English gazettes to be substantially if not verbatim the same. Pinkney inculcates a firm adherence to the Non-Importation Act, the President’s proclamation of July, 1807, and the embargo.

With respect to this last measure, the public mind in this quarter appears to be unshaken. You can judge better of its state northwardly. The Federal papers, I observe, form the most sanguine calculations.

The month of August has borne hard on the crops of corn and tobacco, being both dry and cold; and I learn that they were generally less promising than in this particular district. Beyond the mountains the crops of corn will be very scanty indeed.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

Monticello, September 2, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I enclose you the cases of Thorndike, of Massachusetts, and Barney, of Rhode Island, received by yesterday’s post, which appearing to have nothing taking them out of the common rule, you will be pleased to dispose of them according to that. Thorndike’s ground is that he was out of the State of Massachusetts during the whole time permits were allowed. If he had been out of the United States, the case would have merited consideration; but the knowledge of the law, and of the permissions under it, must be presumed to be known through all the United States. Should we conclude to permit vessels to go for salt? this must depend on the quantity on hand, of which, in your position, you can judge best. If we are to do it, Barney’s may begin the business on that principle; but not on the one he alleges, of the late receipt of a letter. I propose to be at Washington on the 1st of October. The newspapers tell us of despatches from Mr. Pinkney; but Mr. Madison had not received them the day before yesterday. Affectionate salutations.

P.S.—I appoint Eugene Sullivan at West Point. Rose turns out to be a great sot. In a letter of August 15, General Dearborn says, “From the report made by the best-informed blockbuilders at New York, the expense, as estimated, would amount to almost one million of dollars, and I have been obliged to postpone the erection of the line of blocks and chains for further consideration.” This mortifies me extremely; for, although I should be for allowing the million, our appropriation will not bear it, and we ought not to begin a thing which will go beyond that without consulting Congress. It was my hope to have left all the seaport towns in a state of defence; but this, and our unfortunate disappointments at New Orleans, will leave these two important places unfinished.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, September 2, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Yours of 26th ult. was received yesterday, together with that of Mr. Madison, advising that a vessel must be despatched from Philadelphia for France and England; which will be attended to, only making her to sail on 20th instead of 15th inst., in order to give full time and avoid the expense of demurrage.

My circular of 1st August, precluding the departure of vessels after the 16th, did not reach Charleston till the 17th. Four owners of vessels who had obtained permission and were ready to sail, having been detained in port by the collectors in conformity with the circulars, have petitioned for leave to go, as they had not been notified of the limitation. The enclosed letter to Mr. Theus contains the petitions and my answer.

Although I did not feel authorized to grant the request, their case is hard, and I have therefore transmitted the letter to you, in order that you may decide. Will you have the goodness, in order to prevent delays, to endorse on the petitions or otherwise enclose in the letter to Mr. Theus your determination, and then to seal and forward the letter, only letting me know your decision? I enclose you also a letter from Mr. Gray, whose respectability and meritorious conduct you know, for leave to send a vessel to the Cape of Good Hope: if granted, it will be necessary to extend the same privilege to the insurance companies of Philadelphia, whose application, through Mr. Fitzsimons, for a similar object, we lately rejected; the copy of my letter to the collectors of North Carolina, which, through mistake, was sent from my office to me instead of being sent to you; an application for licensing a regular packet between Vermont and St. John’s, in Canada; a request from the Western traders at New Orleans that no Atlantic flour be permitted to go there.

The opposition continues in Massachusetts, and is encouraged by the petitions to repeal the embargo. I receive and answer daily letters on that subject, with which I do not trouble you, as they contain only details of a similar nature with those already known to you. I will only state that I fear that there has been a laxity on the part of the district attorney, Mr. Blake. He is often absent, has answered none of my letters, and I have been obliged to authorize the collectors, in several instances, to employ other counsel. With the result of our late measures to enforce the laws on the Lakes we are not yet acquainted. We have a new collector at Sacket’s Harbor, and it will perhaps also be necessary, after investigation, to make a change in the district of Oswego. In every other quarter the law is now carried into effect with as few evasions as could be expected. On the general scale of politics we are certainly gaining ground in Pennsylvania. I have heard nothing for or against the appointment of collector. The feeling in favor of Spain is very general, and the observations of the Washington papers on that subject generally disapproved. Until the circumstances and probable result were better ascertained, they ought to have confined themselves to a bare recital of the news.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, September 8, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I enclose the following papers:

1. Application to Havana, at particular request of the parties.

2. A letter from Soderström. Shall the collectors of Baltimore be directed to give him the certificates he requires? The object is to subject to penalties Swedish or Americo-Swedish subjects trading to this country contrary to certain regulations of the Swedish government, and to enforce on those subjects here the authority claimed over them by Soderström. His unanswered letter of July, I sent long ago to Mr. Rodney for his opinion, with a request to transmit both to you. Your decision has never been received.

3. Recommendations for office of receiver at Steubenville. The question seems to lie between Wilson and Dickenson. I do not recollect whether you have filled the place of commissioner of loans in Georgia vacant by the death of Alger, deceased near three months ago.

I have given the directions for the vessel intended to go to Europe. But I think she might have been delayed till we had received answers to the proposals sent by the St. Michael. Till then we do not know precisely the ground to be taken in Russia. You know that my opinion was contrary to the mission there during the recess of the Senate, and our critical and doubtful situation at home does not seem to recommend at this time an appointment which must necessarily be unpopular. Last accounts from the collector of Champlain have induced me to request the Governor of New York that he would send a company of militia there.

In relation to the embargo, we have nothing else new of importance.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO DAVID THOMAS, TREASURER STATE OF NEW YORK.

Treasury Department, 14th September, 1808.

Sir,—

I had the honor to receive your letter of 22d August, requesting to know whether any part of the two millions of dollars appropriated by the Act of 13th February, 1806, for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse with foreign nations, had been drawn from the Treasury, and if thus drawn, to what purpose the money had been applied. Official documents, already published by order of Congress, sufficiently show that not a single cent of that money has ever been expended.

That appropriation was made in order to enable the President to acquire Florida by treaty. Messrs. Armstrong and Bowdoin, who were intrusted with the negotiation, were accordingly authorized, if they should succeed in making the purchase, to draw for one million of dollars on the bankers of the United States at Amsterdam, and for one million on the Treasury, as was stated to Congress in the annual report on finances of December, 1806. The negotiation did not succeed: Florida has not been purchased; those gentlemen never drew for any part of the money; and the funds placed in the hands of the bankers at Amsterdam, part of which might have been applied to the purchase if it had taken place, have, according to their original destination, been solely applied to the payment of the Dutch debt, as appears by the annual report of the commissioners of the sinking fund of February, 1808.

The evidence of those facts being scattered amongst voluminous documents of no very general circulation, I enclose a certificate from the Register of the Treasury, which will remove any doubt on that subject.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, September 14, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Your letters of 2d and 5th I received only on the 12th inst. I intend leaving this on the 21st, and expect to reach Washington about the 27th. Any letter, therefore, written subsequent to the receipt of this should be directed to Washington. If in the mean while I hear of the arrival of the St. Michael, I will hasten my departure and travel faster, so as to be ready to receive any communication arising from her return, or to meet you if the exigency of the case induces you to return to Washington sooner than you calculated.

With the assistance of Governor Tompkins and of General Wilkinson, militia and regulars have arrived, or are now on their march to the Lakes, and I hope that by the 1st of October everything will be there in tolerable order, and the militia relieved everywhere but in Vermont by the regulars. Nothing new or extraordinary from New England or any other quarter. I find it difficult to have the necessary prosecutions instituted in the northern parts of this State. But the district attorney of Maine has, by going himself to Passamaquoddy, collecting evidence, instituting suits, &c., restored order in that quarter. I enclose two cases for your decision. Shall vessels which had sailed under permission, and have been forced to return by stress of weather or compulsion, be permitted to proceed again on their voyages? It is asserted, but not yet certain, that we have lost the election in Vermont. Of New Jersey I can ascertain nothing; but it is a doubtful State. In Pennsylvania we have gained ground east of the mountains, but rather lost westwardly. I have still good hopes of that State; but should we lose it the fate of the Presidential election must, as in 1800, depend on South Carolina. The late accounts from Spain induce a belief that the war there will be more similar to those of Ireland and La Vendée, than productive of serious resistance. But the colonies may probably stand out.

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

New York, September 16, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I am again compelled to address you on the subject of Governor Sullivan’s certificates, which he continues, as I am informed from several quarters, pertinaciously to issue. Whether he still sends duplicates to the Treasury I do not know, but, from the new form which he has adopted, rather think that he does not. I write, however, to the principal clerk in my office to send to you along with this letter a memorandum of the gross amount of his permissions so far as they have been received there. But of the effect I can speak with certainty. Those permissions do not only create dissatisfaction and operate unequally in favor of those who obtain them, but they materially interfere with the execution of the embargo laws. As a proof that they are granted without discretion, and for districts where flour is not wanted, I enclose a letter from the deputy collector of Barnstable, then at Boston. The provisions imported into Massachusetts in large quantities are intended for exportation, and are the foundation of the violations of the embargo there. The facilities afforded by the immediate egress from the ports of that State to the sea, by the vicinity of Nova Scotia, and by the number of British vessels hovering on the coast for the purpose of receiving cargoes, give already sufficient temptations for violations of the law.

The systematic opposition connected with political views which prevails there, renders the execution of the embargo still more difficult, and the governor’s permissions supply the objects to be exported, as otherwise fish would be the only article that could be smuggled away. I think it really necessary that some efficient measure should be adopted to put an end to his certificates, or to prevent their being respected by the collectors. With very few exceptions, the embargo is now rigidly enforced in every other port of the sea-border.

With great respect and attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO CHARLES PINCKNEY, GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Treasury Department, 24th October, 1808.

. . . On the subject of the embargo, and particularly of what you should communicate to the Legislature, I must refer you to the President, who can alone judge of the propriety and extent of communications prior to the meeting of Congress. As an individual (but this is conjecture, and not fact), I believe that the British Ministry is either unwilling, if they can avoid it, to repeal their orders in any event whatever, or that they wait for the result of their intrigues and of the exertions of their friends here, with hopes of producing irresistible dissatisfaction to the embargo, and a change of measures and of men. I trust that if this be their object they will be disappointed, and of the steadiness and patriotism of South Carolina I never entertained any doubt. On an alteration in the measures of the French Emperor I place no more confidence, perhaps even less, than on Great Britain. The only difference in his favor, and it arises probably from inability alone, is that he interferes not with our domestic concerns. But let those nations pursue what course they please, I feel a perfect confidence that America will never adopt a policy which would render her subservient to either, and that after twenty-five years of peace and unparalleled prosperity she will meet with fortitude the crisis, be it what it will, which may result from the difficult situation in which she is for the first time placed since the treaty of 1783.

I have the honor to be, &c.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

October 25, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

In the case of the schooner Anne, carried off forcibly by a British crew, I think the removal of the inspector should be permitted to take place. The collector should be instructed to communicate from time to time all circumstances which may enable us to trace the vessel, and copies of these papers should be furnished to Mr. Madison to furnish him the grounds of an answer to the British complaints of our transactions on the Lakes.

Would it not be well to have a bill ready for Congress on the defects which experience has developed in the embargo laws? Mandamus. The discretion of the collector expressly subjected to instructions from hence. To seize all suspected deposits. Bonds to be equal to what the cargoes would sell for in the highest foreign market, &c. Such other amendments as have occurred to you. The passing the law at their meeting would have a good effect in Europe, and would not pledge themselves to a continuance. Affectionate salutations.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

October 30, 1808.

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

I enclose you the financial paragraph with your amendments. I shall insert one on the militia, but doubt whether I can say anything about the deficiency of the revenue if the embargo is continued, having declined expressing any opinion on its continuance. The whole of the paragraphs respecting our foreign affairs will be to be remodelled in consequence of the return of the Hope. The manufacturing paragraph is also remanufactured. Affectionate salutations.

I am puzzled about the Martinique paupers.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Department of Treasury, 2d November, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I came late in the office, and, having only verbal alterations to propose of no importance, do not wish to detain the message from the other gentlemen.

The only observations that have occurred are, that the argument derived from the nature of the answer of Mr. Canning, being more controvertible than the general ground assumed in support of the fairness of our proposition, seems to weaken this. We might say, Not only it is controverted that France was the aggressor; not only we deny the doctrine of retaliation, particularly to the extent it has been carried; but even granting all that, our proposition met every objection, &c. The climax as the message stands does not seem quite right, nor the statement of the pretensions of Great Britain, as contained in Canning’s answer, as forcible as what precedes. Is it necessary to state that at all? and might not all that follows the words “the arrangement has nevertheless been explicitly rejected” be omitted? The fact is that I do not recollect enough of the argumentative part of Canning’s answer to propose any alteration.

But I wish you would read over the paragraph to which I allude.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

I return the financial paragraph with the blanks filled.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

REMARKS ON PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE.

2d November, 1808.

First paragraph.—As the message will have a much more rapid and extensive circulation than the accompanying documents, it seems desirable that the proposition made to the belligerent powers, particularly to Great Britain, should be more explicitly stated. “Our disposition to exercise the authority in such manner as would withdraw the very pretexts on which their aggressions were founded;” “as the measure had been assumed by each merely as a retaliation for a pretended acquiescence in the aggressions of the other;” “the very pretext for obstructing which (the commerce of the United States) no longer existed.” From those sentences alone in the message, it would be impossible to infer that the fair proposition to the belligerent had actually been made. I am aware that a difficulty arises in making a brief and clear statement, from the modified manner in which the overture was made to France, which will be best explained by the documents. Yet, so far as practicable, it is of real importance that the message itself should at once, and in an explicit manner, apprise our citizens and the people of England of the candid, impartial, and clear proposition which was made. How such modification should be introduced cannot be suggested without recurrence to the instructions given to our ministers by the Secretary of State.

Would it be improper, in order to repel some late false assertions, to state the precise time and vessel by which the instructions were sent? adding that when that vessel left Europe “no change had yet taken place,” &c., the definitive answer to our proposition, which is every day expected, not having at that time been yet given.

This would modify the disagreeable intelligence that no change had yet taken place, and, without raising improper expectations, state the real fact, and therefore that a possibility still existed of a change.

First and second paragraphs.—The conduct of the belligerents affords certainly the most just grounds of complaint. Yet those two paragraphs strike me as being too much in a tone of complaint and despondency. If the President should, on reading them over, think the observation correct, it will be easy to make a few verbal alterations. But there are two additions at the end of the first and second paragraphs which would produce the effect I wish, and be in other respects useful.

1. When speaking of the advantages resulting from the embargo, to add, the opportunity thereby given of demonstrating to foreign nations the fairness of our conduct, of placing our cause on irrefragable grounds of justice, and of thereby uniting the whole of our nation, who must now be convinced of the sincerity of the efforts of the Executive and of the persevering injustice of the belligerents.

2. In speaking of the painful alternatives out of which Congress must choose, to add the confidence of the Executive that the crisis, be it what it may, will be met with fortitude, &c.

Third paragraph.—I think this much too long, considering the degree of importance now attached to it by the nation. I would omit the opinion that the seamen will be restored.

Seventh paragraph.—I would omit the sentence, “as the additional expense to effect this would be very considerable, it will rest with Congress to decide on its being undertaken.” For the fact is sufficiently evident without stating it, and, under existing circumstances, the sentence might be misrepresented as intended to prevent the adoption of the measure.

Tenth paragraph.—The conclusion of this paragraph announces, I fear, more than has been performed. I would omit from “and force has imposed” to the end of the paragraph.

Eleventh paragraph.—This paragraph appears to me the most objectionable in the message. From the manner in which it is expressed, it might be inferred, as the President’s opinion, that a positive benefit is derived from the introduction of manufactures caused by the annihilation of commerce. I think the opinion, if it did exist, incorrect; but, be that as it may, its avowal (for it will be construed as an avowal) will produce a pernicious effect, and furnish a powerful weapon to the disaffected in the seaports and in all the Eastern States. All that seems important to be communicated, and it is only in relation to the British government and nation that it is important, is that the situation in which we have been forced has compelled us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to manufactures, and that those establishments will be permanent for the reasons mentioned. But I would omit everything which looks like a contrast between commerce and manufactures, and exultation at the result. This result should, it seems to me, be given as consolation, and not as matter of congratulation in the abstract.

Nor have we any data which would justify the supposition that the mass of our future wants will be supplied from among ourselves. The expressions which appear to me most objectionable are, “the nation at large will derive sensible advantage from the conversion, &c.”

“The extent is far beyond expectation,” and “the mass of our future wants, &c.”

“And the produce of the agriculturist, &c.,” to the end of the sentence, particularly the contrast with the necessity heretofore incurred “to traverse the ocean, exposed to its dangers and to rapine,” which is little less than a denunciation of commerce.

Twelfth paragraph.—The balance in the Treasury on 30th September was about 13,800,000 dollars. But this great accumulation is due principally to our having redeemed but very little debt during the year, the great bulk of reimbursement falling for this calendar year on 31st December next, when we will have to pay near six millions, chiefly principal of the eight per cent. stock. Those six millions must therefore be considered as a deduction from the balance in the Treasury; and as this is the last time that the President will address Congress on that subject, I would propose to include in the redemption of debt what will be paid on 31st December next (stating it as such), presenting thereby in a single view the total amount of debt extinguished during the eight years of the President’s Administration.

For there will be no payments on that account between the 1st of January and the 4th March next. I will be able Tuesday or Wednesday next to prepare a financial paragraph to that effect, and to fill the blanks in round numbers. The President may then either substitute it or fill the blanks of the present one.

But it follows that we cannot draw from this apparent accumulation the inferences next following in the message. The words “if we are to have war” do also state the case in words which have been avoided in other parts of the message; nor do they state all the contingencies under which the application of all our funds will be obvious. For, in case of the embargo being continued, we will have still less revenue, and will therefore still more want the money in hand than in case of war. I would therefore submit the propriety of substituting to that part of the message in substance what follows:

“The probable accumulation of the surpluses of revenue whenever the freedom and safety of our commerce shall be restored, beyond what can be applied to the payment of the public debt, merits the consideration of Congress. Shall it lie unproductive? shall the revenue be reduced? or shall it not? &c.”

I would omit the words “and at hazard in the public vaults.”

When the subject of improvements was recommended two years ago by the President, I prevailed on him to omit the idea of an apportionment amongst the several States. For the same reason I wish extremely that the words “securing to each of them the employment of their proportionate share within their respective States” [should be omitted]. It may ultimately be necessary to insert such provision in the amendment in order to insure its success; but it is very desirable that it should be adopted without such restriction. A just apportionment will naturally result from the conflicting interests on the floor of Congress.

But the strict rule in a constitutional provision would be very embarrassing, and sometimes defeat the most important objects, because it often happens that an improvement is as useful or more useful to an adjacent State than to that through which it passes. Thus, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is almost altogether in the State of Delaware, and does not touch Pennsylvania, to which it is more useful than to any other State. According to the rule, its expense should be considered as the apportionment of Delaware, and Pennsylvania would receive her whole apportionment for other works, as if that was not done principally on her account. Indeed, as Delaware is not th part of the Union, if the part of the canal which passes through that State costs 600,000 dollars, it never could be done unless sixty millions of dollars were expended in the whole. I am clearly of opinion that without an amendment to the Constitution nothing efficient can be done; but in order to insure the execution of the great national communications, the application should, if possible, be left by the amendment to Congress, unrestrained by special rules.

There are, I think, two omissions in the message:

1st. In the case of war, or continued embargo, the revenue will be evidently insufficient to meet the expenses.

2d. Although former recommendations have not been successful, I would again call the attention of Congress to improvements in the militia,—the defence which events have now so clearly demonstrated to be the only one on which nations can rely with safety.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 3d November, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

No deed has ever been made to Indians of lands reserved to them in this manner, for two reasons: 1st, that, holding from them, we cannot convey to them what they have not ceded; 2d, that this reservation is on the same footing with other lands not ceded, being reserved not for individuals who might sell, but for a whole tribe. By our general law, the Indians cannot, therefore, sell this tract to any but the United States. I have no doubt that this is a white men speculation, the patent now applied for being intended to enable the Indians to sell to them. But, at all events, a law would be necessary to authorize a patent in this case. If we knew the Nantucket consumption, we might act on the petition. They have been concerned in the exportation, and very probably there is now a scarcity. Vessels may take their cargoes under the usual restrictions as to all other ports. Yet it may be best, on the plan which you have adopted, to write to Mr. Lincoln. I would prefer writing to the collector. The words “extinguishing 7,670,000 dollars of principal during the current year,” in the financial paragraph, are not correct. That sum is the amount redeemed within fifteen months, viz., from 1st October, 1807, to 31st December, 1808. I would, therefore, omit those words, stating only that the payment of 1st January next includes the completion of the reimbursement of the 8 per cent. stock. With that omission, “seven and an half preceding years” should be substituted in the next line to “six and an half.” The total amount of redemption, viz., $33,580,000, is for 7 years and 9 months, viz., from 1st April, 1801, to 1st January, 1809, and will include almost the whole of your Administration, as nothing will be paid from 1st January, 1809, to 3d March ensuing, and the only sum omitted is what may have been paid between 3d March, 1801, and 1st of April of same year, which I have never ascertained, but does not exceed one hundred thousand dollars.

I cannot say precisely what the revenue liberated amounts to, but think it is a little less than two millions; about might be substituted to upwards.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Department of Treasury, 8th November, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

The collector of Barnstable and his son, who acts as deputy, have faithfully used their best endeavors to carry the laws into effect, and, according to what appears to be a part of the system adopted in Massachusetts, are harassed by private suits. All the cases, three in number, are perfectly clear; detentions arising from the opinion of the collector that the intention was to evade the law, and on such grounds as have induced in every case a confirmation in the name of the President. I can do no more than to give general assurances of support; and one source of embarrassment arises from the conduct of the district attorney, Blake, who has not even answered a single one of the many letters which I have written to him in relation to the embargo. Both as relates to the suits against the collector and the question of replevy, which, if submitted to, will defeat the operation of any law we can pass, I wish that the President would read the letters and give an opinion which I may, in his name, communicate to the district attorney. And it is also necessary to examine what provisions may be introduced in our Judiciary Act which will protect our laws and collectors against encroachments of State officers.

I enclose, as connected with the subject, copy of a letter written last summer to the collector of Newport on the subject of replevy.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Department of Treasury, 15th November, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

Both Mr. Madison and myself concur in opinion that, considering the temper of the Legislature, or rather of its members, it would be eligible to point out to them some precise and distinct course.

As to what that should be, we may not all perfectly agree; and perhaps the knowledge of the various feelings of the members and of the apparent public opinion may on consideration induce a revision of our own. I feel myself nearly as undetermined between enforcing the embargo or war as I was on our last meetings. But I think that we must (or rather you must) decide the question absolutely, so that we may point out a decisive course either way to our friends. Mr. Madison, being unwell, proposed that I should call on you and suggest our wish that we might, with the other gentlemen, be called by you on that subject. Should you think that course proper, the sooner the better. The current business has prevented my waiting on you personally in the course of the morning.

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO WM. B. GILES, U. S. Sen.

Treasury Department, November 24, 1808.

Sir,—

Indisposition has prevented an earlier answer to your letter of the 14th instant.

For better preventing coasting vessels, regularly cleared, from violating the embargo, two measures appear necessary:

1. That the amount of the bond should be increased. 2. That neither capture, distress, nor any other accident should be admitted as a plea, or given in evidence on trial.

By the first regulation, the temptation of going to a foreign port, in hopes that the profit on the sale of the cargo will indemnify for the forfeiture of the penalty, will be done away. By the second, every expectation of escaping the payment of the penalty under fraudulent pretences will be disappointed, and the power of remitting the penalties in the few cases of unavoidable accident which may occur will remain as heretofore, and, as in other cases, with the Treasury.

As the object of those two regulations will be to make the bond a sufficient and complete security, they will have a tendency to relieve, in a considerable degree, the coasting trade from the inconvenience resulting from detentions.

The sufficiency of the bond will, in many doubtful cases, remove the necessity of detaining vessels, or, what amounts to the same, of informing the owners that, unless they reduce the amount of their cargoes, they will be detained.

I would also submit the propriety of placing under the control of the President that power of detention vested in the collectors by the Act of the 25th of April last. That subject has been a constant source of complaint and difficulty. It has been the uniform practice, from the establishment of the government of the United States, to give positive instructions to the collectors respecting the execution of the laws, and which they were bound to obey, unless a different construction should be established by a legal decision. This, indeed, was essentially necessary, in order to secure an uniform construction and execution of the laws. But the provision now alluded to makes the detention to rest on the opinion of each collector, and this must necessarily produce a great diversity in the manner in which the power should be executed. All has been done that could be done to obviate that evil, and, the President being authorized to decide on the detentions when made, the opportunity was taken to inform the collectors of what, in his opinion, should be a proper cause of detention. This, however, could be given only as opinion, and operate as a recommendation, and not as an order. Nor does it appear practicable to establish uniformity and to prevent partiality, and either laxity or too great severity in practice, unless the power of prescribing general rules in that respect, by which the collectors will be bound to abide, be vested in the President.

I am aware that there is another mode of evasion by regular coasting vessels, which will not be prevented by either of the preceding provisions. Either whilst in port, or on their way down our rivers and bays, coasting vessels may receive articles not entered in their manifest, which they put on board other vessels, lying off the coast for that purpose.

But it is not perceived that any legal provision can prevent that infraction, nor that any other remedy can be found than the vigilance of the officers. Another general regulation will, however, be suggested, perhaps useful as a permanent measure, but which would, at all events, under existing circumstances, give additional security for the observance of the laws, and afford some relief to our own seamen, to wit, a prohibition to employ any aliens either as masters or part of the crew of any coasting vessel.

It is still more difficult to guard against violations by vessels departing without clearance, in open defiance of the laws. The following provisions, on mature consideration, appear the most efficient that can be devised against infractions, which it is the more necessary to repress, as they may be daily expected to increase, and threaten to prostrate the law and government itself:

1. To forbid expressly under pain of forfeiture (the penalty now being only implied) the lading of any vessel without the permission of the collector, and without the bond for a coasting voyage being previously given, authorizing the collectors to refuse permission unless the object be that of a lawful coasting or fishing voyage. The great number of vessels now laden and in a state of readiness to depart shows the necessity of this provision. If there be cases in which the indulgence of converting vessels into warehouses ought to be granted, there will be no hardship, where the intention is fair, to require a bond similar to that given for a coasting voyage. And the collectors should likewise, in such cases, be expressly authorized to take such efficient precautions as will put it out of the power of such vessels to sail without warning.

2. In order to prevent those fraudulent sales of vessels by which ostensible owners of no responsibility are substituted for those from whom penalties might be recovered, it is necessary to provide that those owners of vessels whose names appear on the register or license should continue to be reputed as such, and liable to the penalties, in case of infraction of the laws, until the register or license shall have been actually surrendered, and new papers shall have been regularly granted by the collector to the purchaser. And, in every such case of purchase, a sufficient bond that the embargo shall not be infringed, to be previously required.

3. The power to seize unusual deposits, now vested in the collectors of districts adjacent to the territories of foreign nations, should, as was contemplated in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, be extended to all the districts. That this is an arbitrary power, which nothing but the unremitted efforts in some places to evade the law can possibly justify, cannot be denied, and it should, like that of detention, be placed under the control of the President, and be executed only in conformity with such general rules as he would prescribe.

4. Exclusively of the assistance which may be derived from gunboats and from the armed vessels of the United States, it would be advisable to authorize the President to add ten or twelve cutters to the establishment. Fast sailing vessels, of easy draft of water, and requiring only from fifteen to thirty men each, are mostly wanted, and would, for the object contemplated, be as useful as the largest frigates.

5. It is with regret that the necessity of authorizing, on the application of the collector, an immediate call for the local physical force of the country must also be stated. But such partial acts of violence as have taken place in some of the seaports cannot be prevented by the circuitous manner in which the public force must now be brought out in support of the laws. And no doubt exists that the mass of the citizens, whether they approve or disapprove of the embargo, would, in every port, instantaneously suppress any such outrage, provided they can be called upon to act in a legal manner.

Some other provisions appear also necessary for the purpose of carrying the laws more completely into effect along our land frontier:

1. The exportation of specie by land should be expressly prohibited.

2. The power of detaining deposits should be so expressed as to leave no doubt of the authority to detain wagons and other carriages laden and actually on their way to a foreign territory. Although I cannot perceive any reason for the distinction, it has been supposed, in one of the districts, that the law which authorized the detention of flour, beef, or potash deposited in a warehouse, did not extend to the case of their being deposited in a wagon, although evidently on its way to Canada.

3. The offence now punishable by law is that of exportation. This is not consummated till after the property has actually been carried beyond the lines, where, being in a foreign jurisdiction, it cannot be seized, so that forfeiture, which is the most efficient penalty, can never apply to exportations by land; and no bond being required, as in the case of vessels, the only remedy is the uncertain one of recovering penalties against apparent offenders, who either abscond or have no property. How far it may be practicable to make the act of preparing the means of exportation punishable, or to provide some other remedy, is submitted to the committee.

But it must also be observed that every degree of opposition to the laws which falls short of treason is now, with but few exceptions, an offence undefined and unprovided for by the laws of the United States; whence it follows that such offences remain unpunished when the State authorities do not interfere. The necessity of defining those offences by law as misdemeanors, and of providing an adequate punishment, appears obvious.

I will beg leave here to add, that it does not appear necessary to continue any longer the indulgence granted to the British merchants to import, for the use of the Indians, articles of which the importation is generally prohibited by law, as that privilege is liable to great abuse, and affords just ground of dissatisfaction to American citizens. Whether it be advisable to continue the permission given to those Indian traders to export furs and peltries, is a question to be decided by political considerations.

The last branch of the subject to which I wish at present to call the attention of the committee relates to interruptions and certain injurious proceedings attempted under color of law.

1. Vexatious suits are brought against collectors, which not only perplex faithful officers, but have the effect of intimidating others, and prevent an energetic performance of their duties. The only provisions which have occurred to me on that subject are, to enable the collectors who may be sued always to remove the cause before a court of the United States; to make a certificate, issued by the proper authority, that there was reasonable cause of detention; protect them against damages in cases of detentions, in the same manner as is now provided in case of seizures; and to provide for the safe-keeping and restoring, when proper, and on security being given, the vessels and property which may be detained.

2. Attempts have in several instances been made to wrest from the collectors, by writs of replevin issued by State courts or officers, property detained or seized by said collectors, or which in any other manner is in their possession, in conformity with some law of the United States. It is evident that such attempts, if submitted to, would defeat not only the embargo, but also the revenue laws of the United States; that whenever property is, by virtue of a law of the United States, in possession of a collector, marshal, or any other of their officers, no process, in rem, which will take the property away, whether of replevin, attachment, or any other, can be legally issued by a State authority; and that the sheriff or other person executing the same must be considered as a mere trespasser, and be resisted accordingly. But there is no other way at present to resist such illegal process but actual force. And it appears necessary that another remedy should be afforded by providing a summary mode of superseding any such process through the interference of the courts and judges of the United States, and by making it penal for any sheriff or other person to execute the same, or in any manner to attempt to take property which, by virtue of any law of the United States, is in the collector’s possession.

3. In some instances where vessels and cargoes libelled for infractions of the embargo have been restored to the owners on their giving security for the appraised value, the valuations have been so low as to reduce the forfeiture to an inconsiderable sum, thereby defeating altogether the law. It is suggested that this might be prevented by a provision authorizing and directing the district judges to set aside, on motion of the district attorney, such valuations whenever, in their opinion, falling short of the true value.

On the subject of mandamus, I will only observe that, in the only instance which has taken place, the court, supposing they had jurisdiction, could not, from the manner in which the question was brought before them, have decided otherwise than they did; but that it is desirable that the question of jurisdiction, as it relates either to the courts in whom the power ought to be vested, or to the cases to which it should extend, should be precisely defined by law.

I have not, in this communication, taken into consideration the technical defects of the existing embargo laws, because prosecutions do not fall within my immediate cognizance, and I do not feel competent to the task of pointing out the necessary alterations. Measures have, however, been taken to procure on that subject, and from the proper sources, information, which will hereafter be laid before the committee.

To the remaining inquiry of the committee, whether the inconveniences of the present system may not in some degree be removed, I can only answer, generally, that a law which lays such extensive restrictions as the embargo cannot be carried into effect without imposing serious inconveniences, even on the domestic intercourse of the United States; and that these must necessarily be increased in proportion to the opposition and efforts to evade or violate the law. It has already been stated that provisions which will render the bond given by coasting vessels a complete security against violations by them will diminish the necessity and extent of more arbitrary restrictions. An authority to permit, on proper security being given, such vessels, when they arrive in port, to keep their cargoes on board, would afford some relief. And I think that the credit on duties accruing on the importation of certain articles which was allowed by the Act of the 10th March last, should be extended to all importations of the same articles made after the passing of the Act; those made in vessels which sailed under special permission only excepted. With respect to this last class of importations, as they were permitted by special indulgence, and as it is understood that it has been impossible in many cases to prevent its being abused, and as in almost all, the parties, having a species of exclusive privilege, have made sufficiently profitable voyages, the propriety, particularly in the existing situation of the revenue, of allowing them also the advantage of an extended credit on duties, is not perceived.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant.

CAMPBELL’S REPORT.

November, 1808.

The committee to whom, &c., report:

After a period of twenty-five years of peace, hardly interrupted by transient hostilities, and of prosperity unparalleled in the history of nations, the United States are, for the first time since the treaty which terminated the Revolutionary war, placed in a situation equally difficult, critical, and dangerous.

Those principles recognized by the civilized world, under the name of law of nations, which heretofore controlled belligerent powers, regulated the duties of neutrals, and protected their rights, are now avowedly disregarded or forgotten by Great Britain and France. Each of those two nations captures and condemns all American vessels trading with her enemy or her enemy’s allies; and every European power having become a party in the contest, the whole of our commerce with Europe and European colonies becomes liable to capture by either the one or the other. If there be any nominal exception, it is made on a condition of tribute which only adds insult to the injury.

The only plea urged in justification of those hostilities is that of retaliation, grounded on a presumed acquiescence of the United States in previous aggressions of the other party. Waiving a discussion of the correctness of the principle of retaliation,—a principle doubtful in itself, and altogether inadmissible to the extent to which it has been carried, and when operating on the neutral rather than on the enemy,—it is altogether untrue that the United States have ever voluntarily acquiesced in the unlawful aggressions of either nation, omitted or delayed any measures calculated to obtain redress, or in any respect deviated from that strict impartiality to which they were bound by their neutrality.

France has alluded to the violations of the national flag and of the sovereignty of the United States in the instances of Pierce’s murder, of the outrage on the Chesapeake, and of the destruction of the Impetuous. The measures taken to obtain redress in those cases are of public notoriety; and it may be added that, with the exception of the last, those aggressions on the sovereignty of the United States did not affect their neutrality, and gave no right to France either of complaint or interference.

Setting aside irregularities of less importance, and equally chargeable to both nations, such as the British order of June, 1803, and the decree of the French general, Ferrand, the principal violations by England of the neutral rights of America prior to the Berlin decree of November, 1806, and which, if acquiesced in, might have given grounds of complaint to France, are, the captures of American vessels laden with colonial produce, founded on a renewal of that pretended principle generally called “the Rule of 1756;” the impressment of American seamen, compelled thereby to become the auxiliaries of England against France, and proclamation or nominal blockades, particularly that of the coast from the river Elbe to Brest, notified in May, 1806.

It will not be asserted that the United States ever tamely acquiesced in either of those pretensions. It will not be denied that, with respect to the two first, the most strenuous efforts were incessantly made to procure an alteration of the British system.

It is true that to the nominal proclamation blockades of England the United States had opposed only spirited and repeated remonstrances, and that these had not always been successful. But the measures which a neutral nation may be supposed bound to take against the infractions of its neutrality must always bear a certain proportion to the extent and nature of the injury received and to the means of opposition. It cannot certainly be pretended that a hasty resort to war should, in every such instance, have become the duty of America. Nor can the irregularities of England in declaring in a state of blockade a certain extent of coast, part of which was not, and the whole of which could not, even by her poweful navy, be actually invested and blockaded, be pleaded in justification of that decree by which France, without an efficient fleet, pretends to announce the blockade of the dominions of a power which has the incontestable command of the sea, and before no port of which she can station a single vessel.

The Milan decree of 1807 can still less rest for its defence on the supposed acquiescence of the United States in the British orders of the preceding month, since those orders, which have not certainly been acquiesced in, were not even known in America at the date of the decree. And it is proper here to add that the French have, particularly by the sequestration of certain vessels in their ports, and by burning our ships on the high seas, gone even beyond the tenor of their own extraordinary edicts.

The allegation of an acquiescence in the Berlin decree of November, 1806, by which alone the British government pretends to justify the orders of council, is equally unfounded. In the note on that subject addressed, on the 31st December, 1806, by the British government to the American ministers, after having stated that they would not believe that the enemy would ever seriously attempt to enforce such a system, the following declaration is expressly made: “If, however, the enemy should carry these threats into execution, and if neutral nations, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usurpations, his Majesty might probably be compelled, however reluctantly, to retaliate in his just defence,” &c. The two requisites necessary in the opinion of Great Britain to justify retaliation are stated to be the execution of the decree, and the acquiescence of neutral nations. Yet within eight days after, and in the face of that declaration, without waiting for ascertaining either of these facts, the retaliating British order of January 7, 1807, was issued, which, contrary to the acknowledged law of nations, subjected to capture vessels of the United States sailing from the ports of one belligerent to a port of another belligerent.

The United States, in the mean while, and without delay, had taken the necessary steps to ascertain the manner in which the French government intended to execute their decree.

That decree might be construed merely as a municipal law forbidding the introduction of British merchandise and the admission of vessels coming from England. Under that aspect, and if confined to that object, the neutral rights of America were not affected by its operation.

A belligerent may, without any infraction of neutral rights, forbid the admission into his ports of any vessel coming from the ports of his enemy. And France had undoubtedly the same right to exclude from her dominions every species of British merchandise which the United States have exercised in forbidding the importation of certain species. Great Britain might be injured by such regulations; but America had no more right to complain of that part of the decree than France had to object to the American Non-Importation Act. So far, indeed, as respects the United States, they were placed by the municipal part of the decree in the same situation in relation to France in which they are placed in their intercourse with Great Britain by the permanent laws of that country. The French decree forbids American vessels to import British merchandise into France. The British Navigation Act forbids American vessels to import French merchandise into England. But that broad clause of the Berlin decree which declared the British Islands in a state of blockade, though not followed by regulations to that effect, still threatened an intended operation on the high seas. This, if carried into effect, would be a flagrant violation of the neutral rights of the United States, and, as such, they would be bound to oppose it. The minister of the United States at Paris immediately applied for explanations on that subject; and the French Minister of Marine, on the 24th December, 1806, seven days before the date of the above-mentioned note of the British government, stated in answer that the decree made no alteration in the regulations then observed in France with regard to neutral navigators, or to the commercial convention of the United States with France; that the declaration of the British Islands being in a state of blockade did not change the existing French laws concerning maritime captures; and that American vessels could not be taken at sea for the mere reason of their being going to or returning from an English port.

The execution of the decree comported for several months with those explanations; several vessels were arrested for having introduced articles of English growth or manufacture, and among them some which, being actually from England and laden with English colonial produce, had entered with forged papers as if coming from the United States. But no alteration of the first construction given by the French government took place until the month of September, 1807. The first condemnation on the principle that the decree subjected neutral vessels to capture on the high seas was that of the Horizon, on the 10th October following; prior to that time there could have been no acquiescence in a decree infringing the neutral rights of the United States, because till that time it was explained, and, what was more important, executed in such a manner as not to infringe those rights,—because till then no such infraction had taken place. The ministers of the United States at London, at the request of the British minister, communicated to him on the 18th October, 1807, the substance of the explanations received, and of the manner in which the decree was executed, for they were at that time ignorant of the change which had taken place.

It was on the 18th September, 1807, that a new construction of the decree took place, an instruction having on that day been transmitted to the council of prizes by the Minister of Justice, by which that court was informed that French armed vessels were authorized under that decree to seize, without exception, in neutral vessels, either English property or merchandise of English growth or manufacture. An immediate explanation having been asked from the French Minister of Foreign Relations, he confirmed, in his answer of 7th October, 1807, the determination of his government to adopt that construction. Its first application took place on the 10th of the same month, in the case of the Horizon, of which the minister of the United States was not informed until the month of November, and on the 12th of that month he presented a spirited remonstrance against that infraction of the neutral rights of the United States. He had in the mean while transmitted to America the instruction to the council of prizes of the 18th September. This was received on the of December, and a copy of the decision in the case of the Horizon having at the same time reached government, the President, aware of the consequences which would follow that new state of things [and of the intentions of the British government to extend at all events what was called retaliating measures],1 communicated immediately to Congress the alterations of the French decree, and recommended the embargo, which was accordingly laid on the 22d December, 1807; at which time it was well understood in this country that the British orders of council of November preceding had been issued, although they were not officially communicated to our government.

On the 11th November preceding, the British orders of council had been issued, declaring that all the ports of France, of her allies, and of any other country at war with England, and all other ports of Europe from which, although not at war with England, the British flag was excluded, should thenceforth be considered as if the same were actually blockaded; that all trade in articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries should be deemed unlawful; and that every vessel trading from or to the said countries, together with all goods and merchandise on board, and also all articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries, should be liable to capture and condemnation.

These orders cannot be defended on the ground of their being intended as retaliating on account of the Berlin decree, as construed and uniformly executed from its date to the 18th September, 1807, its construction and execution having till then infringed no neutral rights. For certainly the monstrous doctrine will not be asserted even by the British government that neutral nations are bound to resist not only the acts of belligerent powers which violate their rights, but also those municipal regulations which, however they may injure the enemy, are lawful, and do not affect the legitimate rights of the neutral. The only retaliation to be used in such cases must be such as will operate on the enemy without infringing the rights of the neutral. If solely intended as a retaliation on the Berlin decree as executed prior to the month of September, the British orders of council should have been confined to forbidding the introduction into Great Britain of French or enemy’s merchandise, and the admission into British ports of neutral vessels coming from a French or other enemy’s port. Indeed, the ground of retaliation on account of any culpable acquiescence of neutrals in decrees violating their rights is abandoned by the very tenor of the orders, their operation being extended to those countries from which the British flag was excluded,—such as Austria,—although such countries were neither at war with Great Britain nor had passed any decree in any way affecting or connected with neutral rights.

Nor are the orders justifiable on the pretence of an acquiescence on the part of the United States in the French decree as construed and executed subsequent to the 18th September, 1807, when it became an evident infraction of their rights, and such as they were bound to oppose. For their minister at Paris immediately made the necessary remonstrances, and the orders were issued not only without having ascertained whether the United States would acquiesce in the injurious alteration of the French decree, but more than one month before that alteration was known in America. It may even be asserted that the alteration was not known in England when the orders of council were issued, the instruction of the 18th September, 1807, which gave the new and injurious construction, not having been promulgated in France, and its first publication having been made in December, 1807, and by the American government itself.

The British orders of council are therefore unjustifiable on the principle of retaliation, even giving to that principle all the latitude which has ever been avowedly contended for. They are in open violation of the solemn declaration made by the British ministers in December, 1806, that retaliation on the part of Great Britain would depend on the execution of an unlawful decree and on the acquiescence of neutral nations in such infraction of their rights. And they were also issued notwithstanding the official communication made by the ministers of the United States that the French decree was construed and executed so as not to infringe their neutral rights, and without any previous notice or intimation denying the correctness of that statement. The Berlin decree as expounded and executed subsequent to the 18th September, 1807, and the British orders of council of the 11th November ensuing, are therefore, as they affect the United States, contemporaneous aggressions of the belligerent powers, equally unprovoked and equally indefensible on the presumed ground of acquiescence. These, together with the Milan decree of December, 1807, which filled the measure, would, on the principle of self-defence, have justified immediate hostilities against both nations on the part of the United States. They thought it more eligible in the first instance, by withdrawing their vessels from the ocean, to avoid war, at least for a season, and at the same time to snatch their immense and defenceless commerce from impending destruction.

Another appeal has in the mean time been made, under the authority vested in the President for that purpose, to the justice and true interest of France and England. The propositions made by the United States and the arguments urged by their ministers are before Congress. By these the very pretext of the illegal edicts was removed; and it is evident that a revocation by either nation on the ground on which it was asked, either must have produced what both pretended to have in view, a restoration of the freedom of commerce and of the acknowledged principles of the law of nations, or, in case of refusal by the other belligerent, would have carried into effect in the most efficient manner the ostensible object of the edicts and made the United States a party in the war against him. The effort has been ineffectual. The propositions have been actually rejected by one of the belligerent powers, and remain unanswered by the other. In that state of things, what course ought the United States to pursue? Your committee can perceive no other alternative but abject and degrading submission, war with both nations, or a continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of commerce. The first cannot require any discussion. But the pressure of the embargo, so sensibly felt, and the calamities inseparable from a state of war, naturally create a wish that some middle course might be discovered which should avoid the evils of both and not be inconsistent with national honor and independence. That illusion must be dissipated, and it is necessary that the people of the United States should fully understand the situation in which they are placed.

There is no other alternative but war with both nations or a continuance of the present system. For war with one of the belligerents only would be submission to the edicts and will of the other; and a repeal, in whole or in part, of the embargo must necessarily be war or submission.

A general repeal without arming would be submission to both nations. A general repeal and arming of our merchant vessels would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemy to plunder us without retaliation upon them.

A partial repeal must, from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors and war with the other.

The last position is the only one on which there can be any doubt, and it will be most satisfactorily demonstrated by selecting amongst the several modifications which might be suggested that which may on first view appear the least exceptionable; a proposition to repeal the embargo so far only as relates to those powers which have not passed or do not execute any decrees injurious to the neutral rights of the United States.

It is said that the adoption of that proposition would restore our commerce with the native powers of Asia and Africa, and with Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and Russia. Let this be taken for granted, although the precise line of conduct now pursued by most of those nations in relation to the United States is not correctly ascertained. So far as relates to any advantages which would result from that measure if confined to its ostensible object, it will be sufficient to observe that the exports of articles of the domestic produce of the United States during the year ending the 30th September, 1807, amounted to $48,700,000, and that the portion exported to the countries above enumerated falls short of $7,000,000,—an amount too inconsiderable, when compared with the bulk of our exports, to deserve attention, even if a question affecting the independence of the nation was to be decided by considerations of immediate profit.

But the true effect of the proposition would be to open an indirect trade with Great Britain, which, through St. Bartholomew and Havana, Lisbon, Cadiz, or Gottenburg, would receive, at prices reduced by glutted markets and for want of competition, all the provisions, naval stores, raw materials for her manufactures, and other articles, which she may want. Whether she would be satisfied with that favorable state of things, or whether, considering that boon as a pledge of unqualified submission, she would, according to the tenor of her orders, interrupt our scanty commerce with Russia, and occasionally, under some new pretext, capture, rather than purchase, the cargoes intended for her own use, is equally uncertain and unimportant. Nor can it be doubted that a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents would be war with the other. Considered merely as a question of profit, it would be much more eligible at once to raise the embargo in relation to Great Britain, as we would then at least have the advantages of a direct market with the consumer. But the proposition can only be defended on the ground that France is the only aggressor, and that having no just reason to complain of England, it is our duty to submit to her orders. On that inadmissible supposition it would not only be more candid, but also a more dignified as well as a more advantageous course, openly to join England and to make war against France. The object would be clearly understood, an ally would be obtained, and the meanness of submission might be better palliated.

It appears unnecessary to pursue any further the examination of propositions which the difficult situation of the United States could alone have suggested, and which will prove more inadmissible or impracticable as the subject is more thoroughly investigated. The alternative is painful; it is between a continued suspension of commerce, and war with both England and France. But the choice must ultimately be made between the two, and it is important that we should be prepared for either the one or the other.

The aggressions of England and France collectively, affecting almost the whole of our commerce, and persisted in notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, explanations, and propositions the most candid and unexceptionable, are to all intents and purposes a maritime war waged by both nations against the United States. It cannot be denied that the ultimate and only effectual mode of resisting that warfare, if persisted in, is war. A permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance; it would be withdrawing from the contest and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean. The present unsettled state of the world, the extraordinary situation in which the United States are placed, and the necessity, if war be resorted to, of making it at the same time against both nations, and these the two most powerful of the world, are the principal causes of hesitation. There would be none in resorting to that remedy, however calamitous, if a selection could be made on any principle of justice or without a sacrifice of national independence.

On a question of such difficulty, involving the most important interests of the Union, and which has not perhaps till lately been sufficiently considered, your committee think the House alone competent to pronounce a decisive opinion; and they have in this report confined themselves to an exposition of the subject and to such introductory resolutions as will be equally applicable to either alternative. The first of these, being merely declaratory of a determination not to submit to foreign aggressions, may perhaps at a first view appear superfluous. It is, however, believed by the committee that a pledge by the representatives of the nation that they will not abandon its essential rights will not at this critical moment be unacceptable. The misapprehensions which seem to have existed, and the misrepresentations which have been circulated respecting the state of our foreign relations, render also such declarations expedient; and it may not be useless that every foreign nation should understand that its aggressions never will be justified or encouraged by any description of American citizens. For the question for every citizen now is, whether he will rally round the government of his choice or enlist under foreign banners;—whether he will be for his country or against his country.

The committee respectfully submit the following resolutions:

1. Resolved, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France.

2. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit by law the admission into the ports of the United States of all public or private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerent powers having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of the United States; and also the importation of any goods, wares, or merchandise the growth, produce, or manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession of either.

3. Resolved, That measures ought to be immediately taken for placing the country in a more complete state of defence.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

December 14, 1808.

Th. Jefferson returns the enclosed report to Mr. Gallatin with his entire approbation and affectionate salutations.

P.S.—On reconsideration, the use of the words “temporary” and “permanent,” in the sixth page, applied to the embargo, may give countenance to the Federal charge and clamor, as if we had really contemplated it as a permanent measure; and although the idea, as here explained, is just, yet they will seize and use the word without the explanation. Would not some change, as proposed in the enclosed paper, express your idea without the use of the words which may be so misrepresented?

[Enclosure.]

Paragraph 6, line 8, dele “considered as temporary measures which will ultimately” and insert “after a certain time to.”

Line 12, dele “shall be adopted as a permanent system during the continuance of the existing foreign hostilities” and insert “are to have equal continuance with the existing foreign hostilities,” or preferably, “are to have equal continuance with the belligerent edicts, indefinite as that is.”

Again, paragraph 7, line 1, dele “are therefore” and insert “need therefore be.”1

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Treasury Department, 28th December, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

I had already received and rejected a duplicate of Jacob Smith’s petition. There could be no hesitation in the case, as she is a vessel owned by citizens of the United States, and the President had no authority to grant a permission unless by virtue of the power vested by the first Embargo Act; and that has never been used for any but public purposes. The vessel being originally foreign bottom does not alter the case. There are more than fifty thousand tons of shipping of that description owned by citizens of the United States, and they are expressly embraced by the embargo laws under their technical name, viz., sea-letter vessels.

We cannot destroy the boats, &c., at St. Mary’s without being authorized by law so to do; and Congress shows so much reluctance in granting powers much less arbitrary, that there is no expectation of their giving this. You will also perceive by the letters of the collectors of Brunswick and Savannah that the system of illegal exportations is carried on the largest scale, and embraces all the sea-coast of Georgia. I enclose one more (anonymous) letter on the subject, but which adds nothing to the information already possessed. I wrote yesterday to the three collectors to man and arm a number of boats or vessels of the description mentioned in the Savannah letter. I had already written to Mr. Smith stating the necessity of sending gunboats amongst those inlets and islands, and to the Secretary of War requesting if possible some troops to guard against land exportations across the upper waters of the St. Mary’s. Cotton at this moment is the great object. Every precaution and instruction within the powers of the Treasury has been given in every direction. Even to the northward similar plans are in operation. All the cotton in New York has been purchased by speculators in Boston, and they want to transport it. A single person wanted to ship six thousand bales, equal to 1,800,000 pounds. I have written to Mr. Gelston not to permit the shipment of one bale, as there must be a plan, though the details are not known, for its being illegally exported from Boston. As to Georgia, I do not perceive that anything more can be done than to send gunboats in addition to our small revenue boats. For I am confident that the attempt to negotiate with the Governor of East Florida would be fruitless.

The Atlanta must have been seized by gunboats, in which case the collectors will not be suffered to interfere, as the forfeiture, if any, belongs to the captors.

No permanent grant or permission to settle can be given to the Alabamas without an Act of Congress. But as the President is authorized to except lands from the sales, he might perhaps grant them a permission revocable at will. I think that Congress would agree at once to give them a reasonable tract.1

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JOSEPH H. NICHOLSON.

Washington, 29th December, 1808.

Dear Sir,—

* * * * * * *

William Nicholson is well, and very obedient, both to Mrs. G. and myself. But the poor little fellow is very backward. I will do with him as well as I can. At present, however, I cannot attend to any personal concerns: never was I so overwhelmed with public business. That would be nothing if we went right. But a great confusion and perplexity reigns in Congress. Mr. Madison is, as I always knew him, slow in taking his ground, but firm when the storm arises. What I had foreseen has taken place. A majority will not adhere to the embargo much longer; and if war be not speedily determined on, submission will soon ensue. This entirely between us. When will you be here? We expect you, and the sooner the better. Exclusively of the pleasure we always have in seeing you, rely upon it that your presence will at this crisis be useful. I actually want time to give you more details, but I will only state that it is intended by the Essex junto to prevail on the Massachusetts Legislature, who meet in two or three weeks, to call a convention of the five New England States, to which they will try to add New York; and that something must be done to anticipate and defeat that nefarious plan.

Yours sincerely.

[1 ]Letter to the Governors of New Orleans, Georgia, &c.; see Jefferson’s Works, v. 286, under date of May 6.

[1 ]See the reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 290, dated May 17, 1808.

[1 ]See the reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 291, dated 20th May, 1808.

[1 ]See the reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 296, dated May 27, 1808.

[1 ]See the reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 333, dated 6th August, 1808.

[1 ]See the reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 336, dated August 11, 1808.

[1 ]See Jefferson’s Works, v. 336.

[1 ]See Jefferson’s Works, v. 327, letter of July 29, 1808.

[1 ]See reply to this letter in Jefferson’s Works, v. 344, dated August 15.

[1 ]See reply in Jefferson’s Works, v. 355, dated August 26, 1808.

[1 ]Omitted in the printed report.

[1 ]See the annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated 10th December, 1808.

[1 ]See the letter to which this is in answer, in Jefferson’s Works, v. 405.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

1808: JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN. - Albert Gallatin, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, vol. 1 [1879]

Edition used:

Part of: The Writings of Albert Gallatin, 3 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

With great respect, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

EMBARGO. SKETCH OF A BILL.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

Respectfully, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

JEFFERSON TO GALLATIN.

Dear Sir,—

Sir,—

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

I remain, with great respect, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

With respectful attachment, your obedient servant.

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

Dear Sir,—

GALLATIN TO JEFFERSON.

REMARKS ON PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE.