{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_56035/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_56035","id":"gutenberg_56035","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56035","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","United States -- Politics and government -- 1775-1783","United States -- Politics and government -- 1783-1865"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n Inconsistent hyphenation and spelling in the original document have\n been preserved. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n The [bracketed] footnotes are as in the original.\n\n Inconsistent or incorrect accents and spelling in passages in French,\n Latin and Italian have been left unchanged.\n\n \u03c2 (final form sigma) in the middle of a word has been normalized to \u03c3.\n Greek diacritics were normalized to be all present or all missing,\n according to their preponderance in the quotation.\n\n The paragraph starting \"Page 2, column 2\" has an unmatched quote.\n\n The following possible inconsistencies/printer errors/archaic\n spellings/different names for different entities were identified\n but left as printed:\n\n Vanderkemp and Vander Kemp\n\n Potomac and Patomac\n\n Postlethwayte and Postlethwaite\n\n Mecklenburg and Mecklenberg\n\n ascendancy and ascendency.\n\n On page 33, Molliores Spsyke should possibly be Moli\u00e9re's Psych\u00e9.\n\n On page 52, multnomat should possibly be Multnomat.\n\n On page 181, Universary should possibly be University.\n\n On page 192, sculk should possibly be skulk.\n\n On page 537, the price of the Algerine captives is stated as \"$34,79,228,\",\n which is probably a printer's error.\n\n On page 546, termometer should possibly be thermometer.\n\n\n\n\n\n THE\n WRITINGS\n OF\n THOMAS JEFFERSON:\n BEING HIS\n AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES,\n ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL\n AND PRIVATE.\n\n PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE\n LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS,\n DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.\n\n WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX\n TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE,\n BY THE EDITOR\n H. A. WASHINGTON.\n\n VOL. VII.\n\n NEW YORK:\n H. W. DERBY, 625 BROADWAY.\n 1861.\n\n\n\n\n Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by\n TAYLOR & MAURY,\n In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of\n Columbia.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS TO VOL. VII.\n\n\n\n\n BOOK II.\n\n PART III.--CONTINUED.--LETTERS WRITTEN AFTER HIS RETURN TO THE UNITED\n STATES DOWN TO THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.--(1790-1826,)--3.\n\n\n Adams, John, letters written to, 25, 37, 43, 54, 61, 81, 199, 217,\n 243, 254, 264, 274, 280, 307, 313, 337, 435.\n\n Adams, Mrs. A., letter written to, 52.\n\n Adams, J. Q., letter written to, 436.\n\n\n Barry, Wm. T., letter written to, 255.\n\n Blatchly, C. C., letter written to, 263.\n\n Breckenridge, General, letters written to, 204, 237.\n\n\n Cabell, Joseph C., letters written to, 201, 329, 350, 392.\n\n Campbell, John, letter written to, 268.\n\n Cartwright, Major John, letter written to, 355.\n\n Cooper, Dr., letter written to, 266.\n\n Corey, M., letter written to, 318.\n\n Crawford, Wm. H., letter written to, 5.\n\n\n Dearborne, General, letter written to, 214.\n\n Delaplaine, Mr., letter written to, 20.\n\n Denison, Hon. J. Evelyn, letter written to, 415.\n\n\n Earle, Thomas, letter written to, 310.\n\n Emmet, Dr., letters written to, 438, 441.\n\n Engelbrecht, Isaac, letter written to, 337.\n\n Eppes, Francis, letter written to, 197.\n\n Everett, Edward, letters written to, 232, 270, 340, 380, 437.\n\n\n Flower, George, letter written to, 83.\n\n\n Gallatin, Albert, letter written to, 77.\n\n Garnett, Robert J., letter written to, 336.\n\n Giles, Wm. B., letters written to, 424, 426.\n\n Gilmer, Francis W., letter written to, 3.\n\n Gooch, Claiborne W., letter written to, 430.\n\n\n Hammond, Mr. C., letter written to, 215.\n\n Harding, David H., letter written to, 346.\n\n Hopkins, George F., letter written to, 259.\n\n Humboldt, Baron, letter written to, 74.\n\n Humphreys, Dr. Thomas, letter written to, 57.\n\n\n Johnson, Judge, letters written to, 276, 290.\n\n\n Kerchival, Samuel, letters written to, 9, 35.\n\n\n La Fayette, Marquis de, letters written to, 65, 324, 378.\n\n Lee, H., letters written to, 376, 407.\n\n Lee, Wm., letter written to, 56.\n\n Livingston, Edward, letters written to, 342, 402.\n\n Logan, Dr., letter written to, 19.\n\n Ludlow, Wm., letter written to, 377.\n\n\n Macon, Nathaniel, letter written to, 222.\n\n Madison, James, letters written to, 304, 373, 422, 432.\n\n Manners, Dr. John, letter written to, 72.\n\n Mansfield, Jared, letter written to, 203.\n\n Marbois, M. de, letter written to, 76.\n\n Mease, Dr. James, letter written to, 410.\n\n Megan, Mr., letter written to, 286.\n\n Mellish, Mr., letter written to, 51.\n\n Morse, Jedediah, letter written to, 233.\n\n\n Nicholas, Mr., letter written to, 229.\n\n\n Pickering, Timothy, letter written to, 210.\n\n Pleasants, John Hampden, letter written to, 344.\n\n Plumer, Governor, letter written to, 18.\n\n President, The, letters written to, 287, 299, 315.\n\n\n Ritchie & Gooch, letters written to, 239, 246.\n\n Roane, Judge, letters written to, 211, 212.\n\n Rodgers, Patrick K., letter written to, 327.\n\n Roscoe, Mr., letter written to, 195.\n\n Rush Richard, letters written to, 347, 379.\n\n\n Secretary of State, letter written to, 41.\n\n Short, Wm., letters written to, 309, 389.\n\n Sinclair, St. John, letter written to, 22.\n\n Skidman, Thomas, letter written to, 258.\n\n Smith, Mr. M. Harrison, letter written to, 27.\n\n Smith, James, letter written to, 269.\n\n Smith, General Samuel, letters written to, 284.\n\n Smith, T. J., letter written to, 401.\n\n Smyth, General Alexander, letter written to, 394.\n\n Sparks, Jared, letter written to, 332.\n\n Stuart, Josephus B., letter written to, 64.\n\n Summers, George W., &c., letter written to, 230.\n\n\n Taylor, John, letter written to, 17.\n\n Taylor, Hugh P., letter written to, 2.\n\n Terrel, Dabney, letter written to, 206.\n\n Terril, Chiles, letter written to, 260.\n\n Thweat, Archibald, letters written to, 198.\n\n Tiffany, Isaac H., letter written to, 31.\n\n Ticknor, George, letter written to, 300.\n\n\n Van Buren, Martin, letter written to, 362.\n\n Vaughan, John, letter written to, 409.\n\n\n Waterhouse, Dr. Benjamin, letters written to, 252, 257.\n\n Weightman, Mr., letter written to, 450.\n\n Whittemore, Mr. Robert, letter written to, 245.\n\n Wiss, Lewis M., letter written to, 419.\n\n Woodward, Mr., letter written to, 338.\n\n Woodward, Judge Augustus B., letter written to, 405.\n\n Wright, Miss, letter written to, 408.\n\n\n Address lost, letters written to, 220, 223, 383, 397, 411, 425,\n 431, 444.\n\n\n Letters to Thomas Jefferson from John Adams, 29, 38, 47, 58, 68,\n 70, 85, 219, 261, 279, 302, 396.\n\n\n BOOK III.--PART I.\n\n REPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE.\n\n 1. Report on the method of obtaining fresh water from salt, 455.\n\n 2. Opinion on the proposition for establishing a woollen manufactory\n in Virginia, 460.\n\n 3. Report on copper coinage, 462.\n\n 4. Opinion on the question whether the Senate has the right to\n negative the _grade_ of persons appointed by the Executive to fill\n foreign missions, 465.\n\n 5. Opinion on the validity of a grant made by the State of Georgia\n to certain companies of individuals, of a tract of country, whereof\n the Indian right had never been extinguished, with power to such\n individuals to extinguish the Indian right, 467.\n\n 6. Opinion in favor of the Resolution of May 21, 1790, directing\n that, in all cases where payment had not been already made, the\n debts due to the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina, should\n be paid to the original claimants, and not to their assignees, 469.\n\n 7. Report on plan for establishing uniformity in the coins, weights\n and measures, of the United States, 472.\n\n 8. Opinion on the question whether the President should veto the\n bill, declaring that the seat of government shall be transferred\n to the Potomac in the year 1790, 498.\n\n 9. Opinion respecting expenses and salaries of foreign ministers,\n 501.\n\n 10. Opinion in regard to the continuances of the monopoly of the\n commerce of the Creek nation enjoyed by Colonel McGillivray, 504.\n\n 11. Opinion respecting our foreign debt, 506.\n\n 12. Opinion on the question whether Lord Dorchester should be\n permitted to march troops through the territories of United States\n from Detroit to the Mississippi, 508.\n\n 13. Opinion on the question whether the real object of the expedition\n of Governor St. Clair, should be notified to Lord Dorchester, 510.\n\n 14. Opinion on the proceedings to be had under the Residence Act,\n 511.\n\n 15. Report of the Secretary of State to the President of the United\n States on the Report of the Secretary of the Government of the\n North-West of the Ohio, 513.\n\n 16. Opinion on certain proceedings of the Executive in the\n North-Western Territory, 515.\n\n 17. Report on certain letters between the President and Governeur\n Morris, relative to our difficulties with England, 517.\n\n 18. Report on the Mediterranean trade, 519.\n\n 19. Report on the Algerine prisoners, 532.\n\n 20. Report on the cod and whale fisheries, 538.\n\n 21. Opinion against the constitutionality of a National Bank, 555.\n\n 22. Opinion relative to the ten mile square for the federal\n government, 561.\n\n 23. Report on the policy of securing peculiar marks to manufacturers\n by law, 563.\n\n 24. Opinion relative to the demolition of Mr. Carroll's house by\n Major L'Enfant, in laying out the Federal City 564.\n\n 25. Opinion relative to certain lands on Lake Erie, sold by the U.\n States to Pennsylvania, 567.\n\n 26. Report on the negotiations with Spain to secure the navigation\n of the Mississippi, and a port on the same, 568.\n\n 27. Report on the case of Charles Russell and others, claiming\n certain lands, 592.\n\n 28. Report relative to negotiations at Madrid, 593.\n\n 29. Opinion on bill apportioning representation, 594.\n\n 30. Opinion relative to the re-capture of slaves, escaped to Florida,\n 601.\n\n 31. Report on the assays at the mint, 604.\n\n 32. Report on the petition of John Rodgers relative to certain\n lands on the north-east side of the Tennessee, 605.\n\n 33. Report relative to the boundaries of the lands between the Ohio\n and the lakes acquired by treaties from the Indians, 608.\n\n 34. Report on proceedings of Secretary of State to transfer to\n Europe the annual fund of $40,000, appropriated to that department,\n 610.\n\n 35. Opinion on the question whether the United States have the right\n to renounce their treaties with France, or hold them suspended,\n until the government of that country shall become established, 611.\n\n 36. Opinion relative to granting passports to American vessels, 624.\n\n 37. Opinion relative to the case of a British vessel captured by\n a French vessel, purchased by French citizens, and fitted out as\n a privateer in one of our ports, 626.\n\n 38. Opinion on the proposition of the Secretary of the Treasury to\n open a new loan, 629.\n\n 39. Opinion relative to the policy of a new loan, 633.\n\n 40. Report on the restrictions and privileges of the commerce of\n the United states in foreign countries, 636.\n\n 41. Report on the mint, 651.\n\n\n\n\nPART III.--CONTINUED.\n\nLETTERS WRITTEN AFTER HIS RETURN TO THE U. S. DOWN TO THE TIME OF HIS\nDEATH.\n\n1790-1826.\n\n\n\n\nTO FRANCIS W. GILMER.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 7, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received a few days ago from Mr. Dupont the enclosed\nmanuscript, with permission to read it, and a request, when read, to\nforward it to you, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well\nworthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound,\nsound, and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the\nrightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and\nenforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from\nus. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights\nof another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him;\nevery man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities\nof the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no\nman having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another,\nit is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third.\nWhen the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled\ntheir functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into\nsociety we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one\nof these texts, would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and\nlighten equally our municipal codes. There is a work of the first order\nof merit now in the press at Washington, by Destutt Tracy, on the subject\nof political economy, which he brings into the compass of three hundred\npages, octavo. In a preliminary discourse on the origin of the right of\nproperty, he coincides much with the principles of the present manuscript;\nbut is more developed, more demonstrative. He promises a future work on\nmorals, in which I lament to see that he will adopt the principles of\nHobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense of justice and\ninjustice is not derived from our natural organization, but founded on\nconvention only. I lament this the more, as he is unquestionably the\nablest writer living, on abstract subjects. Assuming the fact, that\nthe earth has been created in time, and consequently the dogma of final\ncauses, we yield, of course, to this short syllogism. Man was created\nfor social intercourse; but social intercourse cannot be maintained\nwithout a sense of justice; then man must have been created with a\nsense of justice. There is an error into which most of the speculators\non government have fallen, and which the well-known state of society of\nour Indians ought, before now, to have corrected. In their hypothesis\nof the origin of government, they suppose it to have commenced in the\npatriarchal or monarchical form. Our Indians are evidently in that state\nof nature which has passed the association of a single family; and not\nyet submitted to the authority of positive laws, or of any acknowledged\nmagistrate. Every man, with them, is perfectly free to follow his own\ninclinations. But if, in doing this, he violates the rights of another,\nif the case be slight, he is punished by the disesteem of his society,\nor, as we say, by public opinion; if serious, he is tomahawked as a\ndangerous enemy. Their leaders conduct them by the influence of their\ncharacter only; and they follow, or not, as they please, him of whose\ncharacter for wisdom or war they have the highest opinion. Hence the\norigin of the parties among them adhering to different leaders, and\ngoverned by their advice, not by their command. The Cherokees, the only\ntribe I know to be contemplating the establishment of regular laws,\nmagistrates, and government, propose a government of representatives,\nelected from every town. But of all things, they least think of subjecting\nthemselves to the will of one man. This, the only instance of actual\nfact within our knowledge, will be then a beginning by republican, and\nnot by patriarchal or monarchical government, as speculative writers\nhave generally conjectured.\n\nWe have to join in mutual congratulations on the appointment of our\nfriend Correa, to be minister or envoy of Portugal, here. This, I hope,\nwill give him to us for life. Nor will it at all interfere with his\nbotanical rambles or journeys. The government of Portugal is so peaceable\nand inoffensive, that it has never any altercations with its friends.\nIf their minister abroad writes them once a quarter that all is well,\nthey desire no more. I learn, (though not from Correa himself,) that\nhe thinks of paying us a visit as soon as he is through his course of\nlectures. Not to lose this happiness again by my absence, I have informed\nhim I shall set out for Poplar Forest the 20th instant, and be back the\nfirst week of July. I wish you and he could concert your movements so\nus to meet here, and that you would make this your head quarters. It\nis a good central point from which to visit your connections; and you\nknow our practice of placing our guests at their ease, by showing them\nwe are so ourselves and that we follow our necessary vocations, instead\nof fatiguing them by hanging unremittingly on their shoulders. I salute\nyou with affectionate esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 20, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am about to sin against all discretion, and knowingly, by\nadding to the drudgery of your letter-reading, this acknowledgment of\nthe receipt of your favor of May the 31st, with the papers it covered.\nI cannot, however, deny myself the gratification of expressing the\nsatisfaction I have received, not only from the general statement of\naffairs at Paris, in yours of December the 12th, 1814. (as a matter\nof history which I had not before received.) but most especially and\nsuperlatively, from the perusal of your letter of the 8th of the same\nmonth to Mr. Fisk, on the subject of draw-backs. This most heterogeneous\nprinciple was transplanted into ours from the British system, by a man\nwhose mind was really powerful, but chained by native partialities to\neverything English; who had formed exaggerated ideas of the superior\nperfection of the English constitution, the superior wisdom of their\ngovernment, and sincerely believed it for the good of this country to\nmake them their model in everything; without considering that what might\nbe wise and good for a nation essentially commercial, and entangled in\ncomplicated intercourse with numerous and powerful neighbors, might not\nbe so for one essentially agricultural, and insulated by nature from\nthe abusive governments of the old world.\n\nThe exercise, by our own citizens, of so much commerce as may suffice\nto exchange our superfluities for our wants, may be advantageous for the\nwhole. But it does not follow, that with a territory so boundless, it is\nthe interest of the whole to become a mere city of London, to carry on\nthe business of one half the world at the expense of eternal war with\nthe other half. The agricultural capacities of our country constitute\nits distinguishing feature; and the adapting our policy and pursuits to\nthat, is more likely to make us a numerous and happy people, than the\nmimicry of an Amsterdam, a Hamburgh, or a city of London. Every society\nhas a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and\nto say to all individuals, that, if they contemplate pursuits beyond\nthe limits of these principles, and involving dangers which the society\nchooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that\nwe want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on\nsuch terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons\ninfected with disease. Such is the situation of our country. We have most\nabundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy\nin peace and safety, without permitting a few citizens, infected with\nthe mania of rambling and gambling, to bring danger on the great mass\nengaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. In your letter to Fisk,\nyou have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1,\nlicentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war\nfor the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations\nfor all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation\nwith the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have\nno hesitation in saying, \"let us separate.\" I would rather the States\nshould withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate\nwith those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every\nnation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, and hold\nthe former at arm's length, by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions,\nvexations and war. No earthly consideration could induce my consent to\ncontract such a debt as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce\nour citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of\nthe twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread,\nor barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body\ntogether. And all this to feed the avidity of a few millionary merchants,\nand to keep up one thousand ships of war for the protection of their\ncommercial speculations. I returned from Europe after our government\nhad got under way, and had adopted from the British code the law of\ndraw-backs. I early saw its effects in the jealousies and vexations of\nBritain; and that, retaining it, we must become like her an essentially\nwarring nation, and meet, in the end, the catastrophe impending over\nher. No one can doubt that this alone produced the orders of council,\nthe depredations which preceded, and the war which followed them. Had\nwe carried but our own produce, and brought back but our own wants, no\nnation would have troubled us. Our commercial dashers, then, have already\ncost us so many thousand lives, so many millions of dollars, more than\ntheir persons and all their commerce were worth. When war was declared,\nand especially after Massachusetts, who had produced it, took side with\nthe enemy waging it, I pressed on some confidential friends in Congress\nto avail us of the happy opportunity of repealing the draw-back; and I\ndo rejoice to find that you are in that sentiment. You are young, and\nmay be in the way of bringing it into effect. Perhaps time, even yet,\nand change of tone, (for there are symptoms of that in Massachusetts,)\nmay not have obliterated altogether the sense of our late feelings and\nsufferings; may not have induced oblivion of the friends we have lost,\nthe depredations and conflagrations we have suffered, and the debts we\nhave incurred, and have to labor for through the lives of the present\ngeneration. The earlier the repeal is proposed, the more it will be\nbefriended by all these recollections and considerations. This is one\nof three great measures necessary to insure us permanent prosperity.\nThis preserves our peace. A second should enable us to meet any war, by\nadopting the report of the war department, for placing the force of the\nnation at effectual command; and a third should insure resources of money\nby the suppression of all paper circulation during peace, and licensing\nthat of the nation alone during war. The metallic medium of which we\nshould be possessed at the commencement of a war, would be a sufficient\nfund for all the loans we should need through its continuance; and if the\nnational bills issued, be bottomed (as is indispensable) on pledges of\nspecific taxes for their redemption within certain and moderate epochs,\nand be of proper denominations for circulation, no interest on them\nwould be necessary or just, because they would answer to every one the\npurposes of the metallic money withdrawn and replaced by them.\n\nBut possibly these may be the dreams of an old man, or that the occasions\nof realizing them may have passed away without return. A government\nregulating itself by what is wise and just for the many, uninfluenced\nby the local and selfish views of the few who direct their affairs, has\nnot been seen perhaps, on earth. Or if it existed, for a moment, at the\nbirth of ours, it would not be easy to fix the term of its continuance.\nStill, I believe it does exist here in a greater degree than anywhere\nelse; and for its growth and continuance, as well as for your personal\nhealth and happiness, I offer sincere prayers, with the homage of my\nrespect and esteem.\n\n\nTO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 12, 1816.\n\nSIR,--I duly received your favor of June the 13th, with the copy of\nthe letters on the calling a convention, on which you are pleased to\nask my opinion. I have not been in the habit of mysterious reserve on\nany subject, nor of buttoning up my opinions within my own doublet. On\nthe contrary, while in public service especially, I thought the public\nentitled to frankness, and intimately to know whom they employed. But\nI am now retired: I resign myself, as a passenger, with confidence to\nthose at present at the helm, and ask but for rest, peace and good will.\nThe question you propose, on equal representation, has become a party\none, in which I wish to take no public share. Yet, if it be asked for\nyour own satisfaction only, and not to be quoted before the public, I\nhave no motive to withhold it, and the less from you, as it coincides\nwith your own. At the birth of our republic, I committed that opinion\nto the world, in the draught of a constitution annexed to the \"Notes\non Virginia,\" in which a provision was inserted for a representation\npermanently equal. The infancy of the subject at that moment, and our\ninexperience of self-government, occasioned gross departures in that\ndraught from genuine republican canons. In truth, the abuses of monarchy\nhad so much filled all the space of political contemplation, that we\nimagined everything republican which was not monarchy. We had not yet\npenetrated to the mother principle, that \"governments are republican\nonly in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute\nit.\" Hence, our first constitutions had really no leading principles in\nthem. But experience and reflection have but more and more confirmed me\nin the particular importance of the equal representation then proposed.\nOn that point, then, I am entirely in sentiment with your letters; and\nonly lament that a copy-right of your pamphlet prevents their appearance\nin the newspapers, where alone they would be generally read, and produce\ngeneral effect. The present vacancy too, of other matter, would give\nthem place in every paper, and bring the question home to every man's\nconscience.\n\nBut inequality of representation in both Houses of our legislature, is\nnot the only republican heresy in this first essay of our revolutionary\npatriots at forming a constitution. For let it be agreed that a government\nis republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal\nvoice in the direction of its concerns, (not indeed in person, which\nwould be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township,\nbut) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible to him at\nshort periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon every branch\nof our constitution.\n\nIn the legislature, the House of Representatives is chosen by less than\nhalf the people, and not at all in proportion to those who do choose.\nThe Senate are still more disproportionate, and for long terms of\nirresponsibility. In the Executive, the Governor is entirely independent\nof the choice of the people, and of their control; his Council equally\nso, and at best but a fifth wheel to a wagon. In the Judiciary, the\njudges of the highest courts are dependent on none but themselves.\nIn England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an\nhereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared, and has\nflowed, it was a great point gained, by fixing them for life, to make\nthem independent of that executive. But in a government founded on the\npublic will, this principle operates in an opposite direction, and against\nthat will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the\nexecutive and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of\nthe nation itself. They are irremovable, but by their own body, for any\ndepravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities\nof dotage. The justices of the inferior courts are self-chosen, are for\nlife, and perpetuate their own body in succession forever, so that a\nfaction once possessing themselves of the bench of a county, can never\nbe broken up, but hold their county in chains, forever indissoluble. Yet\nthese justices are the real executive as well as judiciary, in all our\nminor and most ordinary concerns. They tax us at will; fill the office of\nsheriff, the most important of all the executive officers of the county;\nname nearly all our military leaders, which leaders, once named, are\nremovable but by themselves. The juries, our judges of all fact, and of\nlaw when they choose it, are not selected by the people, nor amenable to\nthem. They are chosen by an officer named by the court and executive.\nChosen, did I say? Picked up by the sheriff from the loungings of the\ncourt yard, after everything respectable has retired from it. Where then\nis our republicanism to be found? Not in our constitution certainly,\nbut merely in the spirit of our people. That would oblige even a despot\nto govern us republicanly. Owing to this spirit, and to nothing in the\nform of our constitution, all things have gone well. But this fact, so\ntriumphantly misquoted by the enemies of reformation, is not the fruit\nof our constitution, but has prevailed in spite of it. Our functionaries\nhave done well, because generally honest men. If any were not so, they\nfeared to show it.\n\nBut it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I\ndo not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down\ntrue principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into\ntheir surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth\nagainst the ascendency of the people. If experience be called for, appeal\nto that of our fifteen or twenty governments for forty years, and show\nme where the people have done half the mischief in these forty years,\nthat a single despot would have done in a single year; or show half the\nriots and rebellions, the crimes and the punishments, which have taken\nplace in any single nation, under kingly government, during the same\nperiod. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right\nof every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.\nTry by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see\nif it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature\nto a convenient number for full, but orderly discussion. Let every man\nwho fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election.\nSubmit them to approbation or rejection at short intervals. Let the\nexecutive be chosen in the same way, and for the same term, by those\nwhose agent he is to be; and leave no screen of a council behind which\nto skulk from responsibility. It has been thought that the people are\nnot competent electors of judges _learned in the law_. But I do not know\nthat this is true, and, if doubtful, we should follow principle. In this,\nas in many other elections, they would be guided by reputation, which\nwould not err oftener, perhaps, than the present mode of appointment. In\none State of the Union, at least, it has long been tried, and with the\nmost satisfactory success. The judges of Connecticut have been chosen\nby the people every six months, for nearly two centuries, and I believe\nthere has hardly ever been an instance of change; so powerful is the\ncurb of incessant responsibility. If prejudice, however, derived from a\nmonarchical institution, is still to prevail against the vital elective\nprinciple of our own, and if the existing example among ourselves of\nperiodical election of judges by the people be still mistrusted, let us at\nleast not adopt the evil, and reject the good, of the English precedent;\nlet us retain amovability on the concurrence of the executive and\nlegislative branches, and nomination by the executive alone. Nomination\nto office is an executive function. To give it to the legislature, as\nwe do, is a violation of the principle of the separation of powers.\nIt swerves the members from correctness, by temptations to intrigue\nfor office themselves, and to a corrupt barter of votes; and destroys\nresponsibility by dividing it among a multitude. By leaving nomination\nin its proper place, among executive functions, the principle of the\ndistribution of power is preserved, and responsibility weighs with its\nheaviest force on a single head.\n\nThe organization of our county administrations may be thought more\ndifficult. But follow principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide the\ncounties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when\ncalled on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their\nwards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen\nby themselves, in each, a constable, a military company, a patrol, a\nschool, the care of their own poor, their own portion of the public\nroads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the\ndelivery, within their own wards, of their own votes for all elective\nofficers of higher sphere, will relieve the county administration of\nnearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every\ncitizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest\nand most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings\nto the independence of his country, and its republican constitution. The\njustices thus chosen by every ward, would constitute the county court,\nwould do its judiciary business, direct roads and bridges, levy county\nand poor rates, and administer all the matters of common interest to\nthe whole country. These wards, called townships in New England, are\nthe vital principle of their governments, and have proved themselves\nthe wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect\nexercise of self-government, and for its preservation. We should thus\nmarshal our government into, 1, the general federal republic, for all\nconcerns foreign and federal; 2, that of the State, for what relates to\nour own citizens exclusively; 3, the county republics, for the duties\nand concerns of the county; and 4, the ward republics, for the small,\nand yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in\ngovernment, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division\nand subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can\nbe managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every\ncitizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs.\n\nThe sum of these amendments is, 1. General suffrage. 2. Equal\nrepresentation in the legislature. 3. An executive chosen by the people.\n4. Judges elective or amovable. 5. Justices, jurors, and sheriffs\nelective. 6. Ward divisions. And 7. Periodical amendments of the\nconstitution.\n\nI have thrown out these as loose heads of amendment, for consideration\nand correction; and their object is to secure self-government by the\nrepublicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the\npeople; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those\nwho fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for\ncontinued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let\nour rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between\n_economy and liberty_, or _profusion and servitude_. If we run into\nsuch debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in\nour necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for\nour callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people,\nlike them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give\nthe earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and\ndaily expenses: and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread,\nwe must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to\nthink, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to\nobtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks\nof our fellow-sufferers. Our land-holders, too, like theirs, retaining\nindeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held\nreally in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign\ncountries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory\nof the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private\nfortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.\nAnd this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from\nprinciple in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second\nfor a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be\nmere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning\nand suffering. Then begins, indeed, the _bellum omnium in omnia_, which\nsome philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken\nit for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore\nhorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and\nin its train wretchedness and oppression.\n\nSome men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem\nthem like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe\nto the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose\nwhat they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged\nto it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very\nlike the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty\nyears of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and\nthis they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am\ncertainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and\nconstitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with;\nbecause, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find\npractical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that\nlaws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human\nmind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries\nare made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the\nchange of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace\nwith the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat\nwhich fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the\nregimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which\nhas lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely\nyielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive\naccommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses,\nentrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to\nseek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had\nthey been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of\nthe nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let\nus follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is\nnot as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its\nown affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of\nour reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and\nunexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And\nlastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated\nperiods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the\nEuropean tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of\ntime, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that\nperiod then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new\ngeneration. Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as\nthat was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right\nto choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive\nof its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances\nin which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and\nit is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of\ndoing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the\nconstitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from\ngeneration to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so\nlong endure. It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was\nformed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds\nof the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third,\neven if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their\nwill, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds, who,\nwith themselves, compose the present mass of adults? If they have not,\nwho has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and\nnothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can\nbe no accident. This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong\nto its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They\nalone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone,\nand to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only\nbe made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute\nrepresentatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they\nthink will be the best for themselves. But how collect their voice? This\nis the real difficulty. If invited by private authority, or county or\ndistrict meetings, these divisions are so large that few will attend;\nand their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely pronounced. Here, then,\nwould be one of the advantages of the ward divisions I have proposed.\nThe mayor of every ward, on a question like the present, would call his\nward together, take the simple yea or nay of its members, convey these\nto the county court, who would hand on those of all its wards to the\nproper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be\nthus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by\nthe common reason of the society. If this avenue be shut to the call of\nsufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall\ngo on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression,\nrebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation, again;\nand so on forever.\n\nThese, Sir, are my opinions of the governments we see among men, and of\nthe principles by which alone we may prevent our own from falling into\nthe same dreadful track. I have given them at greater length than your\nletter called for. But I cannot say things by halves; and I confide them\nto your honor, so to use them as to preserve me from the gridiron of the\npublic papers. If you shall approve and enforce them, as you have done\nthat of equal representation, they may do some good. If not, keep them\nto yourself as the effusions of withered age and useless time. I shall,\nwith not the less truth, assure you of my great respect and consideration.\n\n\nTO JOHN TAYLOR.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 16, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Yours of the 10th is received, and I have to acknowledge a\ncopious supply of the turnip seed requested. Besides taking care myself, I\nshall endeavor again to commit it to the depository of the neighborhood,\ngenerally found to be the best precaution against losing a good thing. I\nwill add a word on the political part of our letters. I believe we do not\ndiffer on either of the points you suppose. On education certainly not;\nof which the proofs are my bill for the diffusion of knowledge, proposed\nnear forty years ago, and my uniform endeavors, to this day, to get our\ncounties divided into wards, one of the principal objects of which is,\nthe establishment of a primary school in each. But education not being a\nbranch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences,\nan accident only, I did not place it, with election, as a fundamental\nmember in the structure of government. Nor, I believe, do we differ as\nto the county courts. I acknowledge the value of this institution; that\nit is in truth our principal executive and judiciary, and that it does\nmuch for little _pecuniary_ reward. It is their self-appointment I wish\nto correct; to find some means of breaking up a cabal, when such a one\ngets possession of the bench. When this takes place, it becomes the most\nafflicting of tyrannies, because its powers are so various, and exercised\non everything most immediately around us. And how many instances have\nyou and I known of these monopolies of county administration? I knew a\ncounty in which a particular family (a numerous one) got possession of the\nbench, and for a whole generation never admitted a man on it who was not\nof its clan or connexion. I know a county now of one thousand and five\nhundred militia, of which sixty are federalists. Its court is of thirty\nmembers, of whom twenty are federalists, (every third man of the sect.)\nThere are large and populous districts in it without a justice, because\nwithout a federalist for appointment; the militia are as disproportionably\nunder federal officers. And there is no authority on earth which can\nbreak up this junto, short of a general convention. The remaining one\nthousand four hundred and forty, free, fighting, and paying citizens,\nare governed by men neither of their choice or confidence, and without\na hope of relief. They are certainly excluded from the blessings of a\nfree government for life, and indefinitely, for aught the constitution\nhas provided. This solecism may be called anything but republican, and\nought undoubtedly to be corrected. I salute you with constant friendship\nand respect.\n\n\nTO HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR PLUMER.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 21, 1816.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for the copy you have been so good as to send me, of\nyour late speech to the Legislature of your State, which I have read\na second time with great pleasure, as I had before done in the public\npapers. It is replete with sound principles, and truly republican. Some\narticles, too, are worthy of peculiar notice. The idea that institutions\nestablished for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified,\neven to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously\nsupposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may\nperhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but\nis most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests\ngenerally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations\nheld the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on\nus, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in like manner, can make\nlaws and impose burthens on future generations, which they will have no\nright to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the\nliving. I remark also the phenomenon of a chief magistrate recommending\nthe reduction of his own compensation. This is a solecism of which the\nwisdom of our late Congress cannot be accused. I, however, place economy\namong the first and most important of republican virtues, and public\ndebt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. We see in England\nthe consequences of the want of it, their laborers reduced to live on a\npenny in the shilling of their earnings, to give up bread, and resort to\noatmeal and potatoes for food; and their landholders exiling themselves\nto live in penury and obscurity abroad, because at home the government\nmust have all the clear profits of their land. In fact, they see the\nfee simple of the island transferred to the public creditors, all its\nprofits going to them for the interest of their debts. Our laborers and\nlandholders must come to this also, unless they severely adhere to the\neconomy you recommend. I salute you with entire esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR LOGAN.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 23, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have received and read with great pleasure the account you\nhave been so kind as to send me of the interview between the Emperor\nAlexander and Mr. Clarkson, which I now return, as it is in manuscript.\nIt shows great condescension of character on the part of the Emperor,\nand power of mind also, to be able to abdicate the artificial distance\nbetween himself and other good, able men, and to converse as on equal\nground. This conversation too, taken with his late Christian league,\nseems to bespeak in him something like a sectarian piety; his character\nis undoubtedly good, and the world, I think, may expect good effects\nfrom it. I have no doubt that his firmness in favor of France, after the\ndeposition of Bonaparte, has saved that country from evils still more\nsevere than she is suffering, and perhaps even from partition. I sincerely\nwish that the history of the secret proceedings at Vienna may become\nknown, and may reconcile to our good opinion of him his participation\nin the demolition of ancient and independent States, transferring them\nand their inhabitants as farms and stocks of cattle at a market to other\nowners, and even taking a part of the spoil to himself. It is possible\nto suppose a case excusing this, and my partiality for his character\nencourages me to expect it, and to impute to others, known to have no\nmoral scruples, the crimes of that conclave, who, under pretence of\npunishing the atrocities of Bonaparte, reached them themselves, and\nproved that with equal power they were equally flagitious. But let us\nturn with abhorrence from these sceptered Scelerats, and disregarding our\nown petty differences of opinion about men and measures, let us cling\nin mass to our country and to one another, and bid defiance, as we can\nif united, to the plundering combinations of the old world. Present me\naffectionately and respectfully to Mrs. Logan, and accept the assurance\nof my friendship and best wishes.\n\n\nTO MR. DELAPLAINE.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 26, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--In compliance with the request of your letter of the 6th inst.,\nwith respect to Peyton Randolph, I have to observe that the difference\nof age between him and myself admitted my knowing little of his early\nlife, except what I accidentally caught from occasional conversations.\nI was a student at college when he was already Attorney General at the\nbar, and a man of established years; and I had no intimacy with him until\nI went to the bar myself, when, I suppose, he must have been upwards\nof forty; from that time, and especially after I became a member of the\nlegislature, until his death, our intimacy was cordial, and I was with him\nwhen he died. Under these circumstances, I have committed to writing as\nmany incidents of his life as memory enabled me to do, and to give faith\nto the many and excellent qualities he possessed, I have mentioned those\nminor ones which he did not possess; considering true history, in which\nall will be believed, as preferable to unqualified panegyric, in which\nnothing is believed. I avoided, too, the mention of trivial incidents,\nwhich, by not distinguishing, disparage a character; but I have not been\nable to state early dates. Before forwarding this paper to you, I received\na letter from Peyton Randolph, his great nephew, repeating the request\nyou had made. I therefore put the paper under a blank cover, addressed\nto you, unsealed, and sent it to Peyton Randolph, that he might see\nwhat dates as well as what incidents might be collected, supplementary\nto mine, and correct any which I had inexactly stated; circumstances\nmay have been misremembered, but nothing, I think, of substance. This\naccount of Peyton Randolph, therefore, you may expect to be forwarded\nby his nephew.\n\nYou requested me when here, to communicate to you the particulars of\ntwo transactions in which I was myself an agent, to wit: the _coup de\nmain_ of Arnold on Richmond, and Tarleton's on Charlottesville. I now\nenclose them, detailed with an exactness on which you may rely with an\nentire confidence. But, having an insuperable aversion to be drawn into\ncontroversy in the public papers, I must request not to be quoted either\nas to these or the account of Peyton Randolph. Accept the assurances of\nmy esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO SIR JOHN SINCLAIR.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 31, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of November 1st came but lately to my hand. It\ncovered a prospectus of your code of health and longevity, a great and\nuseful work, which I shall be happy to see brought to a conclusion. Like\nour good old Franklin, your labors and science go all to the utilities\nof human life.\n\nI reciprocate congratulations with you sincerely on the restoration\nof peace between our two nations. And why should there have been war?\nfor the party to which the blame is to be imputed, we appeal to the\n\"Exposition of the causes and character of the war,\" a pamphlet which,\nwe are told, has gone through some editions with you. If that does not\njustify us, then the blame is ours. But let all this be forgotten; and\nlet both parties now count soberly the value of mutual friendship. I am\nsatisfied both will find that no advantage either can derive from any\nact of injustice whatever, will be of equal value with those flowing\nfrom friendly intercourse. Both ought to wish for peace and cordial\nfriendship; we, because you can do us more harm than any other nation;\nand you, because we can do you more good than any other. Our growth is\nnow so well established by regular enumerations through a course of forty\nyears, and the same grounds of continuance so likely to endure for a\nmuch longer period, that, speaking in round numbers, we may safely call\nourselves twenty millions in twenty years, and forty millions in forty\nyears. Many of the statesmen now living saw the commencement of the first\nterm, and many now living will see the end of the second. It is not then\na mere concern of posterity; a third of those now in life will see that\nday. Of what importance then to you must such a nation be, whether as\nfriends or foes. But is their friendship, dear Sir, to be obtained by\nthe irritating policy of fomenting among us party discord, and a teasing\nopposition; by bribing traitors, whose sale of themselves proves they\nwould sell their purchasers also, if their treacheries were worth a\nprice? How much cheaper would it be, how much easier, more honorable,\nmore magnanimous and secure, to gain the government itself, by a moral,\na friendly, and respectful course of conduct, which is all they would\nask for a cordial and faithful return. I know the difficulties arising\nfrom the irritation, the exasperation produced on both sides by the late\nwar. It is great with you, as I judge from your newspapers; and greater\nwith us, as I see myself. The reason lies in the different degrees in\nwhich the war has acted on us. To your people it has been a matter of\ndistant history only, a mere war in the carnatic; with us it has reached\nthe bosom of every man, woman and child. The maritime parts have felt it\nin the conflagration of their houses, and towns, and desolation of their\nfarms; the borderers in the massacres and scalpings of their husbands,\nwives and children; and the middle parts in their personal labors and\nlosses in defence of both frontiers, and the revolting scenes they have\nthere witnessed. It is not wonderful then, if their irritations are\nextreme. Yet time and prudence on the part of the two governments may\nget over these. Manifestations of cordiality between them, friendly\nand kind offices made visible to the people on both sides, will mollify\ntheir feelings, and second the wishes of their functionaries to cultivate\npeace, and promote mutual interest. That these dispositions have been\nstrong on our part, in every administration from the first to the present\none, that we would at any time have gone our full half-way to meet them,\nif a single step in advance had been taken by the other party, I can\naffirm of my own intimate knowledge of the fact. During the first year\nof my own administration, I thought I discovered in the conduct of Mr.\nAddington some marks of comity towards us, and a willingness to extend\nto us the decencies and duties observed towards other nations. My desire\nto catch at this, and to improve it for the benefit of my own country,\ninduced me, in addition to the official declarations from the Secretary\nof State, to write with my own hand to Mr. King, then our Minister\nPlenipotentiary at London, in the following words: \"I avail myself of\nthis occasion to assure you of my perfect satisfaction with the manner\nin which you have conducted the several matters committed to you by us;\nand to express my hope that through your agency, we may be able to remove\neverything inauspicious to a cordial friendship between this country,\nand the one in which you are stationed; a friendship dictated by too\nmany considerations not to be felt by the wise and the dispassionate\nof both nations. It is, therefore, with the sincerest pleasure I have\nobserved on the part of the British government various manifestations of\na just and friendly disposition towards us; we wish to cultivate peace\nand friendship with all nations, believing that course most conducive to\nthe welfare of our own; it is natural that these friendships should bear\nsome proportion to the common interests of the parties. The interesting\nrelations between Great Britain and the United States are certainly\nof the first order, and as such are estimated, and will be faithfully\ncultivated by us. These sentiments have been communicated to you from\ntime to time, in the official correspondence of the Secretary of State;\nbut I have thought it might not be unacceptable to be assured that they\nperfectly concur with my own personal convictions, both in relation to\nyourself, and the country in which you are.\"\n\nMy expectation was that Mr. King would show this letter to Mr. Addington,\nand that it would be received by him as an overture towards a cordial\nunderstanding between the two countries. He left the ministry, however,\nand I never heard more of it, and certainly never perceived any good\neffect from it. I know that in the present temper, the boastful, the\ninsolent, and the mendacious newspapers on both sides, will present\nserious impediments. Ours will be insulting your public authorities,\nand boasting of victories; and yours will not be sparing of provocations\nand abuses of us. But if those at our helms could not place themselves\nabove these pitiful notices, and throwing aside all personal feelings,\nlook only to the interests of their nations, they would be unequal\nto the trusts confided to them. I am equally confident, on our part,\nin the administration now in place, as in that which will succeed it;\nand that if friendship is not hereafter sincerely cultivated, it will\nnot be their fault. I will not, however, disguise that the settlement\nof the practice of impressing _our citizens_ is a _sine qu\u00e2 non_, a\npreliminary, without which treaties of peace are but truces. But it is\nimpossible that reasonable dispositions on both parts should not remove\nthis stumbling block, which unremoved, will be an eternal obstacle to\npeace, and lead finally to the deletion of the one or the other nation.\nThe regulations necessary to keep your own seamen to yourselves are those\nwhich our interests would lead us to adopt, and that interest would be a\nguarantee of their observance; and the transfer of these questions from\nthe cognizance of their naval commanders to the governments themselves,\nwould be but an act of mutual as well as of self-respect.\n\nI did not mean, when I began my letter, to have indulged my pen so far on\nsubjects with which I have long ceased to have connection; but it may do\ngood, and I will let it go, for although what I write is from no personal\nprivity with the views or wishes of our government, yet believing them to\nbe what they ought to be, and confident in their wisdom and integrity, I\nam sure I hazard no deception in what I have said of them, and I shall\nbe happy indeed if some good shall result to both our countries, from\nthis renewal of our correspondence and ancient friendship. I recall\nwith great pleasure the days of our former intercourse, personal and\nepistolary, and can assure you with truth that in no instant of time\nhas there been any abatement of my great esteem and respect for you.\n\n\nTO MR. ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 1, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your two philosophical letters of May 4th and 6th have been\ntoo long in my carton of \"letters to be answered.\" To the question,\nindeed, on the utility of grief, no answer remains to be given. You have\nexhausted the subject. I see that, with the other evils of life, it is\ndestined to temper the cup we are to drink.\n\n Two urns by Jove's high throne have ever stood,\n The source of evil one, and one of good;\n From thence the cup of mortal man he fills,\n Blessings to these, to those distributes ills;\n To most he mingles both.\n\nPutting to myself your question, would I agree to live my seventy-three\nyears over again forever? I hesitate to say. With Chew's limitations\nfrom twenty-five to sixty, I would say yes; and I might go further back,\nbut not come lower down. For, at the latter period, with most of us, the\npowers of life are sensibly on the wane, sight becomes dim, hearing dull,\nmemory constantly enlarging its frightful blank and parting with all we\nhave ever seen or known, spirits evaporate, bodily debility creeps on\npalsying every limb, and so faculty after faculty quits us, and where\nthen is life? If, in its full rigor, of good as well as evil, your friend\nVassall could doubt its value, it must be purely a negative quantity\nwhen its evils alone remain. Yet I do not go into his opinion entirely.\nI do not agree that an age of pleasure is no compensation for a moment\nof pain. I think, with you, that life is a fair matter of account, and\nthe balance often, nay generally, in its favor. It is not indeed easy,\nby calculation of intensity and time, to apply a common measure, or to\nfix the par between pleasure and pain; yet it exists, and is measurable.\nOn the question, for example, whether to be cut for the stone? The\nyoung, with a longer prospect of years, think these overbalance the\npain of the operation. Dr. Franklin, at the age of eighty, thought his\nresiduum of life not worth that price. I should have thought with him,\neven taking the stone out of the scale. There is a ripeness of time for\ndeath, regarding others as well as ourselves, when it is reasonable we\nshould drop off, and make room for another growth. When we have lived\nour generation out, we should not wish to encroach on another. I enjoy\ngood health; I am happy in what is around me, yet I assure you I am ripe\nfor leaving all, this year, this day, this hour. If it could be doubted\nwhether we would go back to twenty-five, how can it be whether we would\ngo forward from seventy-three? Bodily decay is gloomy in prospect, but\nof all human contemplations the most abhorrent is body without mind.\nPerhaps, however, I might accept of time to read Grimm before I go.\nFifteen volumes of anecdotes and incidents, within the compass of my own\ntime and cognizance, written by a man of genius, of taste, of point, an\nacquaintance, the measure and traverses of whose mind I know, could not\nfail to turn the scale in favor of life during their perusal. I must\nwrite to Ticknor to add it to my catalogue, and hold on till it comes.\nThere is a Mr. Vanderkemp of New York, a correspondent, I believe, of\nyours, with whom I have exchanged some letters without knowing who he\nis. Will you tell me? I know nothing of the history of the Jesuits you\nmention in four volumes. Is it a good one? I dislike, with you, their\nrestoration, because it marks a retrograde step from light towards\ndarkness. We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of\nthem will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm,\nnot of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance,\nof morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free\ndiscussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier\nagainst the returns of ignorance and barbarism. Old Europe will have to\nlean on our shoulders, and to hobble along by our side, under the monkish\ntrammels of priests and kings, as she can. What a colossus shall we be\nwhen the southern continent comes up to our mark! What a stand will it\nsecure as a ralliance for the reason and freedom of the globe! I like\nthe dreams of the future better than the history of the past,--so good\nnight! I will dream on, always fancying that Mrs. Adams and yourself are\nby my side marking the progress and the obliquities of ages and countries.\n\n\nTO MRS. M. HARRISON SMITH.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 6, 1816.\n\nI have received, dear Madam, your very friendly letter of July 21st, and\nassure you that I feel with deep sensibility its kind expressions towards\nmyself, and the more as from a person than whom no others could be more\nin sympathy with my own affections. I often call to mind the occasions\nof knowing your worth, which the societies of Washington furnished; and\nnone more than those derived from your much valued visit to Monticello. I\nrecognize the same motives of goodness in the solicitude you express on\nthe rumor supposed to proceed from a letter of mine to Charles Thomson,\non the subject of the Christian religion. It is true that, in writing to\nthe translator of the Bible and Testament, that subject was mentioned;\nbut equally so that no adherence to any particular mode of Christianity\nwas there expressed, nor any change of opinions suggested. A change from\nwhat? the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to\nme religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric,\nbut such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for\nestablishing religious freedom. They wished him to be thought atheist,\ndeist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious\ndictations. But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between\nour God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and\nnot to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that\nof another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change\nanother's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their\nlives, and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must\nbe an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue\nand correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that\nour religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me.\nBut this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive,\na declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is\nthat there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been\na priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of\nall moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power,\nrevolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only\nwhat is really there. These, therefore, they brand with such nick-names\nas their enmity choses gratuitously to impute. I have left the world,\nin silence, to judge of causes from their effects; and I am consoled\nin this course, my dear friend, when I perceive the candor with which\nI am judged by your justice and discernment; and that, notwithstanding\nthe slanders of the saints, my fellow citizens have thought me worthy\nof trusts. The imputations of irreligion having spent their force; they\nthink an imputation of change might now be turned to account as a bolster\nfor their duperies. I shall leave them, as heretofore, to grope on in\nthe dark.\n\nOur family at Monticello is all in good health; Ellen speaking of you\nwith affection, and Mrs. Randolph always regretting the accident which\nso far deprived her of the happiness of your former visit. She still\ncherishes the hope of some future renewal of that kindness; in which we\nall join her, as in the assurances of affectionate attachment and respect.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, August 9, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The biography of Mr. Vander Kemp would require a volume which\nI could not write if a million were offered me as a reward for the work.\nAfter a learned and scientific education he entered the army in Holland,\nand served as captain, with reputation; but loving books more than arms\nhe resigned his commission and became a preacher. My acquaintance with\nhim commenced at Leyden in 1790. He was then minister of the Menonist\ncongregation, the richest in Europe; in that city, where he was celebrated\nas the most elegant writer in the Dutch language, he was the intimate\nfriend of Luzac and De Gysecaar. In 1788, when the King of Prussia\nthreatened Holland with invasion, his party insisted on his taking a\ncommand in the army of defence, and he was appointed to the command of\nthe most exposed and most important post in the seven provinces. He was\nsoon surrounded by the Prussian forces; but he defended his fortress with\na prudence, fortitude, patience, and perseverance, which were admired by\nall Europe; till, abandoned by his nation, destitute of provisions and\nammunition, still refusing to surrender, he was offered the most honorable\ncapitulation. He accepted it; was offered very advantageous proposals;\nbut despairing of the liberties of his country, he retired to Antwerp,\ndetermined to emigrate to New York; wrote to me in London, requesting\nletters of introduction. I sent him letters to Governor Clinton, and\nseveral others of our little great men. His history in this country\nis equally curious and affecting. He left property in Holland, which\nthe revolutions there have annihilated; and I fear is now pinched with\npoverty. His head is deeply learned and his heart is pure. I scarcely\nknow a more amiable character.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHe has written to me occasionally, and I have answered his letters in\ngreat haste. You may well suppose that such a man has not always been\nable to understand our American politics. Nor have I. Had he been as\ngreat a master of our language as he was of his own, he would have been\nat this day one of the most conspicuous characters in the United States.\n\nSo much for Vander Kemp; now for your letter of August 1st. Your poet, the\nIonian I suppose, ought to have told us whether Jove, in the distribution\nof good and evil from his two urns, observes any rule of equity or not;\nwhether he thunders out flames of eternal fire on the many, and power,\nand glory, and felicity on the few, without any consideration of justice?\n\nLet us state a few questions _sub ros\u00e2_.\n\n1. Would you accept a life, if offered you, of equal pleasure and pain?\nFor example. One million of moments of pleasure, and one million of\nmoments of pain! (1,000,000 moments of pleasure = 1,000,000 moments of\npain.) Suppose the pleasure as exquisite as any in life, and the pain\nas exquisite as any; for example, stone-gravel, gout, headache, earache,\ntoothache, cholic, &c. I would not. I would rather be blotted out.\n\n2. Would you accept a life of one year of incessant gout, headache,\n&c., for seventy-two years of such life as you have enjoyed? I would\nnot. (One year of cholic = seventy-two of _Boule de Savon_; pretty,\nbut unsubstantial.) I had rather be extinguished. You may vary these\nAlgebraical equations at pleasure and without end. All this ratiocination,\ncalculation, call it what you will, is founded on the supposition of no\nfuture state. Promise me eternal life free from pain, although in all\nother respects no better than our present terrestrial existence, I know\nnot how many thousand years of Smithfield fevers I would not endure to\nobtain it. In fine, without the supposition of a future state, mankind\nand this globe appear to me the most sublime and beautiful bubble, and\nbauble, that imagination can conceive.\n\nLet us then wish for immortality at all hazards, and trust the Ruler\nwith his skies. I do; and earnestly wish for his commands, which to the\nutmost of my power shall be implicitly and piously obeyed.\n\nIt is worth while to live to read Grimm, whom I have read; and La Harpe\nand Mademoiselle D'Espinasse the fair friend of D'Alembert, both of whom\nGrimm characterizes very distinguished, and are, I am told, in print.\nI have not seen them, but hope soon to have them.\n\nMy history of the Jesuits is not elegantly written, but is supported\nby unquestionable authorities, is very particular and very horrible.\nTheir restoration is indeed a \"step towards darkness,\" cruelty, perfidy,\ndespotism, death and ----! I wish we were out of \"danger of bigotry and\nJesuitism\"! May we be \"a barrier against the returns of ignorance and\nbarbarism\"! \"What a colossus shall we be\"! But will it not be of brass,\niron and clay? Your taste is judicious in liking better the dreams of\nthe future, than the history of the past. Upon this principle I prophecy\nthat you and I shall soon meet, and be better friends than ever. So\nwishes,\n\n J. A.\n\n\nTO MR. ISAAC H. TIFFANY.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 26, 1816.\n\nSIR,--In answer to your inquiry as to the merits of Gillies' translation\nof the Politics of Aristotle, I can only say that it has the reputation\nof being preferable to Ellis', the only rival translation into English.\nI have never seen it myself, and therefore do not speak of it from my own\nknowledge. But so different was the style of society then, and with those\npeople, from what it is now and with us, that I think little edification\ncan be obtained from their writings on the subject of government. They\nhad just ideas of the value of personal liberty, but none at all of the\nstructure of government best calculated to preserve it. They knew no\nmedium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable\nbeyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an\naristocracy, or a tyranny independent of the people. It seems not to have\noccurred that where the citizens cannot meet to transact their business\nin person, they alone have the right to choose the agents who shall\ntransact it; and that in this way a republican, or popular government, of\nthe second grade of purity, may be exercised over any extent of country.\nThe full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was\nand is still reserved for us. The idea (taken, indeed, from the little\nspecimen formerly existing in the English constitution, but now lost) has\nbeen carried by us, more or less, into all our legislative and executive\ndepartments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the\nramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing\nnot responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise\nand fruits of their own industry, can never be protected against the\nselfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods.\nThe introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has\nrendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of\ngovernment; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political\nwritings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are\nunfaithfully rendered or explained to us. My most earnest wish is to\nsee the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of\nits practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may\nbe pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, September 3, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Dr. James Freeman is a learned, ingenious, honest and\nbenevolent man, who wishes to see President Jefferson, and requests me\nto introduce him. If you would introduce some of your friends to me, I\ncould, with more confidence, introduce mine to you. He is a Christian,\nbut not a Pythagorian, a Platonic, or a Philonic Christian. You will\nken him, and he will ken you; but you may depend he will never betray,\ndeceive, or injure you.\n\nWithout hinting to him anything which had passed between you and me,\nI asked him your question, \"_What are the uses of grief?_\" He stared,\nand said \"The question was new to him.\" All he could say at present\nwas, that he had known, in his own parish, more than one instance of\nladies who had been thoughtless, modish, extravagant in a high degree,\nwho, upon the death of a child, had become thoughtful, modest, humble;\nas prudent, amiable women as any he had known. Upon this I read to him\nyour letters and mine upon this subject of grief, with which he seemed\nto be pleased. You see I was not afraid to trust him, and you need not\nbe.\n\nSince I am, accidentally, invited to write to you, I may add a few words\nupon pleasures and pains of life. Vassall thought, an hundred years, nay,\nan eternity of pleasure, was no compensation for one hour of bilious\ncholic. Read again Molliores Spsyke, act 2d, scene 1st, on the subject\nof grief. And read in another place, \"_on est pay\u00e8 de mille maux, par un\nheureux moment_.\" Thus differently do men speak of pleasures and pains.\nNow, Sir, I will tease you with another question. What have been the\n_abuses_ of grief?\n\nIn answer to this question, I doubt not you might write an hundred\nvolumes. A few hints may convince you that the subject is ample.\n\n1st. The death of Socrates excited a general sensibility of grief at\nAthens, in Attica, and in all Greece. Plato and Xenophon, two of his\ndisciples, took advantage of that sentiment, by employing their enchanting\nstyle to represent their master to be greater and better than he probably\nwas; and what have been the effects of Socratic, Platonic, which were\nPythagorian, which was Indian philosophy, in the world?\n\n2d. The death of C\u00e6sar, tyrant as he was, spread a general compassion,\nwhich always includes grief, among the Romans. The scoundrel Mark Antony\navailed himself of this momentary grief to destroy the republic, to\nestablish the empire, and to proscribe Cicero.\n\n3d. But to skip over all ages and nations for the present, and descend\nto our own times. The death of Washington diffused a general grief.\nThe old tories, the hyperfederalists, the speculators, set up a general\nhowl. Orations, prayers, sermons, mock funerals, were all employed, not\nthat they loved Washington, but to keep in countenance the funding and\nbanking system; and to cast into the background and the shade, all others\nwho had been concerned in the service of their country in the Revolution.\n\n4th. The death of Hamilton, under all its circumstances, produced a\ngeneral grief. His most determined enemies did not like to get rid of him\nin that way. They pitied, too, his widow and children. His party seized\nthe moment of public feeling to come forward with funeral orations, and\nprinted panegyrics, reinforced with mock funerals and solemn grimaces,\nand all this by people who have buried Otis, Sam Adams, Hancock, and\nGerry, in comparative obscurity. And why? Merely to disgrace the old\nWhigs, and keep the funds and banks in countenance.\n\n5th. The death of Mr. Ames excited a general regret. His long consumption,\nhis amiable character, and reputable talents, had attracted a general\ninterest, and his death a general mourning. His party made the most of\nit, by processions, orations, and a mock funeral. And why? To glorify the\nTories, to abash the Whigs, and maintain the reputation of funds, banks,\nand speculation. And all this was done in honor of that insignificant\nboy, by people who have let a Dance, a Gerry, and a Dexter, go to their\ngraves without notice.\n\n6th. I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example\nof the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--The\nCross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With\nthe rational respect which is due to it, knavish priests have added\nprostitutions of it, that fill, or might fill, the blackest and bloodiest\npages of human history.\n\nI am with ancient friendly sentiments,\n\n\nTO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 5, 1816.\n\nSIR,--Your letter of August the 16th is just received. That which I wrote\nto you under the address of H. Tompkinson, was intended for the author\nof the pamphlet you were so kind as to send me, and therefore, in your\nhands, found its true destination. But I must beseech you, Sir, not to\nadmit a possibility of its being published. Many good people will revolt\nfrom its doctrines, and my wish is to offend nobody; to leave to those\nwho are to live under it, the settlement of their own constitution,\nand to pass in peace the remainder of my time. If those opinions are\nsound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight,\nwithout the aid of names, I am glad to see that the Staunton meeting has\nrejected the idea of a limited convention. The article, however, nearest\nmy heart, is the division of counties into wards. These will be pure and\nelementary republics, the sum of all which, taken together, composes the\nState, and will make of the whole a true democracy as to the business\nof the wards, which is that of nearest and daily concern. The affairs\nof the larger sections, of counties, of States, and of the Union, not\nadmitting personal transaction by the people, will be delegated to agents\nelected by themselves; and representation will thus be substituted, where\npersonal action becomes impracticable. Yet, even over these representative\norgans, should they become corrupt and perverted, the division into wards\nconstituting the people, in their wards, a regularly organized power,\nenables them by that organization to crush, regularly and peaceably,\nthe usurpations of their unfaithful agents, and rescues them from the\ndreadful necessity of doing it insurrectionally. In this way we shall\nbe as republican as a large society can be; and secure the continuance\nof purity in our government, by the salutary, peaceable, and regular\ncontrol of the people. No other depositories of power have ever yet been\nfound, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings\nof those committed to their charge. George the III. in execution of the\ntrust confided to him, has, within his own day, loaded the inhabitants\nof Great Britain with debts equal to the whole fee-simple value of their\nisland, and under pretext of governing it, has alienated its whole soil\nto creditors who could lend money to be lavished on priests, pensions,\nplunder and perpetual war. This would not have been so, had the people\nretained organized means of acting on their agents. In this example\nthen, let us read a lesson for ourselves, and not \"go and do likewise.\"\n\nSince writing my letter of July the 12th, I have been told, that on the\nquestion of equal representation, our fellow citizens in some sections\nof the State claim peremptorily a right of representation for their\nslaves. Principle will, in this, as in most other cases, open the way\nfor us to correct conclusion. Were our State a pure democracy, in which\nall its inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business,\nthere would yet be excluded from their deliberations, 1, infants, until\narrived at years of discretion. 2. Women, who, to prevent depravation of\nmorals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public\nmeetings of men. 3. Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state of things\nwith us takes away the rights of will and of property. Those then who\nhave no will could be permitted to exercise none in the popular assembly;\nand of course, could delegate none to an agent in a representative\nassembly. The business, in the first case, would be done by qualified\ncitizens only. It is true, that in the general constitution, our State is\nallowed a larger representation on account of its slaves. But every one\nknows, that that constitution was a matter of compromise; a capitulation\nbetween conflicting interests and opinions. In truth, the condition\nof different descriptions of inhabitants in any country is a matter\nof municipal arrangement, of which no foreign country has a right to\ntake notice. All its inhabitants are men as to them. Thus, in the New\nEngland States, none have the powers of citizens but those whom they\ncall _freemen_; and none are _freemen_ until admitted by a vote of the\nfreemen of the town. Yet, in the General Government, these non-freemen\nare counted in their quantum of representation and of taxation. So,\nslaves with us have no powers as citizens; yet, in representation in the\nGeneral Government, they count in the proportion of three to five; and\nso also in taxation. Whether this is equal, is not here the question.\nIt is a capitulation of discordant sentiments and circumstances, and is\nobligatory on that ground. But this view shows there is no inconsistency\nin claiming representation for them for the other States, and refusing\nit within our own. Accept the renewal of assurances of my respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 14, 1816.\n\nYour letter, dear Sir, of May the 6th, had already well explained the\nuses of grief. That of September the 3d, with equal truth, adduces\ninstances of its abuse; and when we put into the same scale these abuses,\nwith the afflictions of soul which even the uses of grief cost us, we\nmay consider its value in the economy of the human being, as equivocal\nat least. Those afflictions cloud too great a portion of life to find\na counterpoise in any benefits derived from its uses. For setting aside\nits paroxysms on the occasions of special bereavements, all the latter\nyears of aged men are overshadowed with its gloom. Whither, for instance,\ncan you and I look without seeing the graves of those we have known?\nAnd whom can we call up, of our early companions, who has not left us\nto regret his loss? This, indeed, may be one of the salutary effects\nof grief; inasmuch as it prepares us to loose ourselves also without\nrepugnance. Doctor Freeman's instances of female levity cured by grief,\nare certainly to the point, and constitute an item of credit in the\naccount we examine. I was much mortified by the loss of the Doctor's\nvisit, by my absence from home. To have shown how much I feel indebted\nto you for making good people known to me, would have been one pleasure;\nand to have enjoyed that of his conversation, and the benefits of his\ninformation, so favorably reported by my family, would have been another.\nI returned home on the third day after his departure. The loss of such\nvisits is among the sacrifices which my divided residence costs me.\n\nYour undertaking the twelve volumes of Dupuis, is a degree of heroism\nto which I could not have aspired even in my younger days. I have been\ncontented with the humble achievement of reading the analysis of his work\nby Destutt Tracy, in two hundred pages octavo. I believe I should have\nventured on his own abridgment of the work, in one octavo volume, had it\never come to my hands; but the marrow of it in Tracy has satisfied my\nappetite; and even in that, the preliminary discourse of the analyzer\nhimself, and his conclusion, are worth more in my eye than the body of\nthe work. For the object of that seems to be to smother all history under\nthe mantle of allegory. If histories so unlike as those of Hercules and\nJesus, can, by a fertile imagination and allegorical interpretations,\nbe brought to the same tally, no line of distinction remains between\nfact and fancy. As this pithy morsel will not overburthen the mail in\npassing and repassing between Quincy and Monticello, I send it for your\nperusal. Perhaps it will satisfy you, as it has me; and may save you\nthe labor of reading twenty-four times its volume. I have said to you\nthat it was written by Tracy; and I had so entered it on the title page,\nas I usually do on anonymous works whose authors are known to me. But\nTracy requested me not to betray his anonyme, for reasons which may not\nyet, perhaps, have ceased to weigh. I am bound, then, to make the same\nreserve with you. Destutt Tracy is, in my judgment, the ablest writer\nliving on intellectual subjects, or the operations of the understanding.\nHis three octavo volumes on Ideology, which constitute the foundation\nof what he has since written, I have not entirely read; because I am\nnot fond of reading what is merely abstract, and unapplied immediately\nto some useful science. Bonaparte, with his repeated derisions of\nIdeologists (squinting at this author), has by this time felt that true\nwisdom does not lie in mere practice without principle. The next work\nTracy wrote was the Commentary on Montesquieu, never published in the\noriginal, because not safe; but translated and published in Philadelphia,\nyet without the author's name. He has since permitted his name to be\nmentioned. Although called a Commentary, it is, in truth, an elementary\nwork on the principles of government, comprised in about three hundred\npages octavo. He has lately published a third work, on Political Economy,\ncomprising the whole subject within about the same compass; in which all\nits principles are demonstrated with the severity of Euclid, and, like\nhim, without ever using a superfluous word. I have procured this to be\ntranslated, and have been four years endeavoring to get it printed; but\nas yet, without success. In the meantime, the author has published the\noriginal in France, which he thought unsafe while Bonaparte was in power.\nNo printed copy, I believe, has yet reached this country. He has his\nfourth and last work now in the press at Paris, closing, as he conceives,\nthe circle of metaphysical sciences. This work, which is on Ethics, I\nhave not seen, but suspect I shall differ from it in its foundation,\nalthough not in its deductions. I gather from his other works that he\nadopts the principle of Hobbes, that justice is founded in contract\nsolely, and does not result from the construction of man. I believe, on\nthe contrary, that it is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as\nmuch a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing;\nas a wise creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined\nto live in society; that every human mind feels pleasure in doing good\nto another; that the non-existence of justice is not to be inferred from\nthe fact that the same act is deemed virtuous and right in one society\nwhich is held vicious and wrong in another; because, as the circumstances\nand opinions of different societies vary, so the acts which may do them\nright or wrong must vary also; for virtue does not consist in the act\nwe do, but in the end it is to effect. If it is to effect the happiness\nof him to whom it is directed, it is virtuous, while in a society under\ndifferent circumstances and opinions, the same act might produce pain,\nand would be vicious. The essence of virtue is in doing good to others,\nwhile what is good may be one thing in one society, and its contrary\nin another. Yet, however we may differ as to the foundation of morals,\n(and as many foundations have been assumed as there are writers on the\nsubject nearly,) so correct a thinker as Tracy will give us a sound\nsystem of morals. And, indeed, it is remarkable, that so many writers,\nsetting out from so many different premises, yet meet all in the same\nconclusions. This looks as if they were guided, unconsciously, by the\nunerring hand of instinct.\n\nYour history of the Jesuits, by what name of the author or other\ndescription is it to be inquired for?\n\nWhat do you think of the present situation of England? Is not this the\ngreat and fatal crush of their funding system, which, like death, has\nbeen foreseen by all, but its hour, like that of death, hidden from\nmortal prescience? It appears to me that all the circumstances now\nexist which render recovery desperate. The interest of the national debt\nis now equal to such a portion of the profits of all the land and the\nlabor of the island, as not to leave enough for the subsistence of those\nwho labor. Hence the owners of the land abandon it and retire to other\ncountries, and the laborer has not enough of his earnings left to him\nto cover his back and to fill his belly. The local insurrections, now\nalmost general, are of the hungry and the naked, who cannot be quieted\nbut by food and raiment. But where are the means of feeding and clothing\nthem? The landholder has nothing of his own to give; he is but the\nfiduciary of those who have lent him money; the lender is so taxed in\nhis meat, drink and clothing, that he has but a bare subsistence left.\nThe landholder, then, must give up his land, or the lender his debt,\nor they must compromise by giving up each one-half. But will either\nconsent, _peaceably_, to such an abandonment of property? Or must it not\nbe settled by civil conflict? If peaceably compromised, will they agree\nto risk another ruin under the same government unreformed? I think not;\nbut I would rather know what you think; because you have lived with John\nBull, and know better than I do the character of his herd. I salute Mrs.\nAdams and yourself with every sentiment of affectionate cordiality and\nrespect.\n\n\nTO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 16, 1816.\n\nDEAR SIR,--If it be proposed to place an inscription on the capitol, the\nlapidary style requires that essential facts only should be stated, and\nthese with a brevity admitting no superfluous word. The essential facts\nin the two inscriptions proposed are these:\n\n FOUNDED 1791.--BURNT BY A BRITISH ARMY 1814.--RESTORED BY\n CONGRESS 1817.\n\nThe reasons for this brevity are that the letters must be of extraordinary\nmagnitude to be read from below; that little space is allowed them, being\nusually put into a pediment or in a frieze, or on a small tablet on the\nwall; and in our case, a third reason may be added, that no passion can\nbe imputed to this inscription, every word being justifiable from the\nmost classical examples.\n\nBut a question of more importance is whether there should be one at all?\nThe barbarism of the conflagration will immortalize that of the nation.\nIt will place them forever in degraded comparison with the execrated\nBonaparte, who, in possession of almost every capitol in Europe, injured\nno one. Of this, history will take care, which all will read, while\nour inscription will be seen by few. Great Britain, in her pride and\nascendency, has certainly hated and despised us beyond every earthly\nobject. Her hatred may remain, but the hour of her contempt is passed\nand is succeeded by dread; not a present, but a distant and deep one.\nIt is the greater as she feels herself plunged into an abyss of ruin\nfrom which no human means point out an issue. We also have more reason\nto hate her than any nation on earth. But she is not now an object for\nhatred. She is falling from her transcendent sphere, which all men ought\nto have wished, but not that she should lose all place among nations. It\nis for the interest of all that she should be maintained, _nearly_ on a\npar with other members of the republic of nations. Her power, absorbed\ninto that of any other, would be an object of dread to all, and to us\nmore than all, because we are accessible to her alone and through her\nalone. The armies of Bonaparte with the fleets of Britain, would change\nthe aspect of our destinies. Under these prospects should we perpetuate\nhatred against her? Should we not, on the contrary, begin to open\nourselves to other and more rational dispositions? It is not improbable\nthat the circumstances of the war and her own circumstances may have\nbrought her wise men to begin to view us with other and even with kindred\neyes. Should not our wise men, then, lifted above the passions of the\nordinary citizen, begin to contemplate what _will be_ the interests of\nour country on so important a change among the elements which influence\nit? I think it would be better to give her time to show her present\ntemper, and to prepare the minds of our citizens for a corresponding\nchange of disposition, by acts of comity towards England rather than by\ncommemoration of hatred. These views might be greatly extended. Perhaps,\nhowever, they are premature, and that I may see the ruin of England\nnearer than it really is. This will be matter of consideration with those\nto whose councils we have committed ourselves, and whose wisdom, I am\nsure, will conclude on what is best. Perhaps they may let it go off on\nthe single and short consideration that the thing can do no good, and\nmay do harm. Ever and affectionately yours.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, November 25, 1816.\n\nI receive here, dear Sir, your favor of the 4th, just as I am preparing\nmy return to Monticello for winter quarters, and I hasten to answer\nto some of your inquiries. The Tracy I mentioned to you is the one\nconnected by marriage with Lafayette's family. The mail which brought\nyour letter, brought one also from him. He writes me that he is become\nblind, and so infirm that he is no longer able to compose anything. So\nthat we are to consider his works as now closed. They are three volumes\nof Ideology, one on Political Economy, one on Ethics, and one containing\nhis Commentary on Montesquieu, and a little tract on Education. Although\nhis commentary explains his principles of government, he had intended\nto have substituted for it an elementary and regular treatise on the\nsubject, but he is prevented by his infirmities. His Analyse de Dupuys\nhe does not avow.\n\nMy books are all arrived, some at New York, some at Boston, and I am\nglad to hear that those for Harvard are safe also, and the Uranologia you\nmention without telling me what it is. It is something good, I am sure,\nfrom the name connected with it; and if you would add to it your fable\nof the bees, we should receive valuable instruction as to the Uranologia\nboth of the father and son, more valuable than the Chinese will from\nour bible societies. These incendiaries, finding that the days of fire\nand fagot are over in the Atlantic hemisphere, are now preparing to put\nthe torch to the Asiatic regions. What would they say were the Pope to\nsend annually to this country, colonies of Jesuit priests with cargoes\nof their missal and translations of their Vulgate, to be put gratis into\nthe hands of every one who would accept them? and to act thus nationally\non us as a nation?\n\nI proceed to the letter you were so good as to enclose me. It is an\nable letter, speaks volumes in few words, presents a profound view of\nawful truths, and lets us see truths more awful, which are still to\nfollow. George the Third then, and his minister Pitt, and successors,\nhave spent the fee simple of the kingdom, under pretence of governing\nit; their sinecures, salaries, pensions, priests, prelates, princes\nand eternal wars, have mortgaged to its full value the last foot of\ntheir soil. They are reduced to the dilemma of a bankrupt spendthrift,\nwho, having run through his whole fortune, now asks himself what he is\nto do? It is in vain he dismisses his coaches and horses, his grooms,\nliveries, cooks and butlers. This done, he still finds he has nothing\nto eat. What was his property is now that of his creditors; if still in\nhis hands, it is only as their trustee. To them it belongs, and to them\nevery farthing of its profits must go. The reformation of extravagances\ncomes too late. All is gone. Nothing left for retrenchment or frugality\nto go on. The debts of England, however, being due from the whole nation\nto one half of it, being as much the debt of the creditor as debtor, if\nit could be referred to a court of equity, principles might be devised\nto adjust it peaceably. Dismiss their parasites, ship off their paupers\nto this country, let the landholders give half their lands to the money\nlenders, and these last relinquish one half of their debts. They would\nstill have a fertile island, a sound and effective population to labor\nit, and would hold that station among political powers, to which their\nnatural resources and faculties entitle them. They would no longer,\nindeed, be the lords of the ocean and paymasters of all the princes\nof the earth. They would no longer enjoy the luxuries of pirating and\nplundering everything by sea, and of bribing and corrupting everything\nby land; but they might enjoy the more safe and lasting luxury of living\non terms of equality, justice and good neighborhood with all nations.\nAs it is, their first efforts will probably be to quiet things awhile\nby the palliatives of reformation; to nibble a little at pensions and\nsinecures, to bite off a bit here, and a bite there to amuse the people;\nand to keep the government a going by encroachments on the interest of\nthe public debt, one per cent. of which, for instance, withheld, gives\nthem a spare revenue of ten millions for present subsistence, and spunges,\nin fact, two hundred millions of the debt. This remedy they may endeavor\nto administer in broken doses of a small pill at a time. The first may\nnot occasion more than a strong nausea in the money lenders; but the\nsecond will probably produce a revulsion of the stomach, borborisms,\nand spasmodic calls for fair settlement and compromise. But it is not\nin the character of man to come to any peaceable compromise of such a\nstate of things. The princes and priests will hold to the flesh-pots,\nthe empty bellies will seize on them, and these being the multitude,\nthe issue is obvious, civil war, massacre, exile as in France, until\nthe stage is cleaned of everything but the multitude, and the lands get\ninto their hands by such processes as the revolution will engender. They\nwill then want peace and a government, and what will it be? certainly\nnot a renewal of that which has already ruined them. Their habits of\nlaw and order, their ideas almost innate of the vital elements of free\ngovernment, of trial by jury, _habeas corpus_, freedom of the press,\nfreedom of opinion, and representative government, make them, I think,\ncapable of bearing a considerable portion of liberty. They will probably\nturn their eyes to us, and be disposed to tread in our footsteps, seeing\nhow safely these have led us into port. There is no part of our model\nto which they seem unequal, unless perhaps the elective presidency; and\neven that might possibly be rescued from the tumult of elections, by\nsubdividing the electoral assemblages into very small parts, such as of\nwards or townships, and making them simultaneous. But you know them so\nmuch better than I do, that it is presumption to offer my conjectures\nto you.\n\nWhile it is much our interest to see this power reduced from its towering\nand borrowed height, to within the limits of its natural resources, it is\nby no means our interest that she should be brought below that, or lose\nher competent place among the nations of Europe. The present exhausted\nstate of the continent will, I hope, permit them to go through their\nstruggle without foreign interference, and to settle their new government\naccording to their own will. I think it will be friendly to us, as the\nnation itself would be were it not artfully wrought up by the hatred\ntheir government bears us. And were they once under a government which\nshould treat us with justice and equity I should myself feel with great\nstrength the ties which bind us together, of origin, language, laws and\nmanners; and I am persuaded the two people would become in future, as\nit was with the ancient Greeks, among whom it was reproachful for Greek\nto be found fighting against Greek in a foreign army. The individuals of\nthe nation I have ever honored and esteemed, the basis of their character\nbeing essentially worthy; but I consider their government as the most\nflagitious which has existed since the days of Philip of Macedon, whom\nthey make their model. It is not only founded in corruption itself,\nbut insinuates the same poison into the bowels of every other, corrupts\nits councils, nourishes factions, stirs up revolutions, and places its\nown happiness in fomenting commotions and civil wars among others, thus\nrendering itself truly the _hostis humani generis_. The effect is now\ncoming home to itself. Its first operation will fall on the individuals\nwho have been the chief instruments in its corruptions, and will eradicate\nthe families which have from generation to generation been fattening on\nthe blood of their brethren; and this scoria once thrown off, I am in\nhopes a purer nation will result, and a purer government be instituted,\none which, instead of endeavoring to make us their natural enemies,\nwill see in us, what we really are, their natural friends and brethren,\nand more interested in a fraternal connection with them than with any\nother nation on earth. I look, therefore, to their revolution with great\ninterest. I wish it to be as moderate and bloodless as will effect the\ndesired object of an honest government, one which will permit the world\nto live in peace, and under the bonds of friendship and good neighborhood.\n\nIn this tremendous tempest, the distinctions of whig and tory will\ndisappear like chaff on a troubled ocean. Indeed, they have been\ndisappearing from the day Hume first began to publish his history. This\nsingle book has done more to sap the free principles of the English\nconstitution than the largest standing army of which their patriots have\nbeen so jealous. It is like the portraits of our countryman Wright, whose\neye was so unhappy as to seize all the ugly features of his subject, and\nto present them faithfully, while it was entirely insensible to every\nlineament of beauty. So Hume has concentrated, in his fascinating style,\nall the arbitrary proceedings of the English kings, as true evidences of\nthe constitution, and glided over its whig principles as the unfounded\npretensions of factious demagogues. He even boasts, in his life written\nby himself, that of the numerous alterations suggested by the readers\nof his work, he had never adopted one proposed by a whig.\n\nBut what, in this same tempest, will become of their colonies and their\nfleets? Will the former assume independence, and the latter resort to\npiracy for subsistence, taking possession of some island as a _point\nd'appui_? A pursuit of these would add too much to the speculations on\nthe situation and prospects of England, into which I have been led by the\npithy text of the letter you so kindly sent me, and which I now return.\nIt is worthy the pen of Tacitus. I add, therefore, only my affectionate\nand respectful souvenirs to Mrs. Adams and yourself.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, December 16, 1816.\n\nYour letter, dear Sir, of November 25th, from Poplar Forest, was sent\nto me from the post-office the next day after I had sent \"The Analysis,\"\nwith my thanks to you.\n\n\"Three vols. of Idiology!\" Pray explain to me this Neological title!\nWhat does it mean? When Bonaparte used it, I was delighted with it, upon\nthe common principle of delight in everything we cannot understand. Does\nit mean Idiotism? The science of _non compos mentuism_? The science of\nLunacy? The theory of delirium? or does it mean the science of self-love?\nOf _amour propre_? or the elements of vanity?\n\nWere I in France at this time, I could profess blindness and infirmity,\nand prove it too. I suppose he does not avow the analysis, as Hume did\nnot avow his essay on human nature. That analysis, however, does not\nshow a man of excessive mediocrity. Had I known any of these things two\nyears ago, I would have written him a letter. Of all things, I wish to\nsee his Idiology upon Montesquieu. If you, with all your influence,\nhave not been able to get your own translation of it, with your own\nnotes upon it, published in four years, where and what is the freedom\nof the American press? Mr. Taylor of Hazelwood, Port Royal, can have\nhis voluminous and luminous works published with ease and despatch.\n\nThe Uranologia, as I am told, is a collection of plates, stamps, charts\nof the Heavens upon a large scale, representing all the constellations.\nThe work of some Professor in Sweden. It is said to be the most perfect\nthat ever has appeared. I have not seen it. Why should I ride fifteen\nmiles to see it, when I can see the original every clear evening; and\nespecially as Dupuis has almost made me afraid to inquire after anything\nmore of it than I can see with my naked eye in a star-light night?\n\nThat the Pope will send Jesuits to this country, I doubt not; and the\nchurch of England, missionaries too. And the Methodists, and the Quakers,\nand the Moravians, and the Swedenburgers, and the Menonists, and the\nScottish Kirkers, and the Jacobites, and the Jacobins, and the Democrats,\nand the Aristocrats, and the Monarchists, and the Despotists of all\ndenominations: and every emissary of every one of these sects will find\na party here already formed, to give him a cordial reception. No power\nor intelligence less than Raphael's moderator, can reduce this chaos to\norder.\n\nI am charmed with the fluency and rapidity of your reasoning on the state\nof Great Britain. I can deny none of your premises; but I doubt your\nconclusion. After all the convulsions that you foresee, they will return\nto that constitution which you say has ruined them, and I say has been\nthe source of all their power and importance. They have, as you say, too\nmuch sense and knowledge of liberty, ever to submit to simple monarchy,\nor absolute despotism, on the one hand; and too much of the devil in\nthem ever to be governed by popular elections of Presidents, Senators,\nand Representatives in Congress. Instead of \"turning their eyes to us,\"\ntheir innate feelings will turn them from us. They have been taught from\ntheir cradles to despise, scorn, insult, and abuse us. They hate us more\nvigorously than they do the French. They would sooner adopt the simple\nmonarchy of France, than our republican institutions. You compliment me\nwith more knowledge of them than I can assume or pretend. If I should\nwrite you a volume of observations I made in England, you would pronounce\nit a satire. Suppose the \"Refrain,\" as the French call it, or the Burthen\nof the Song, as the English express it, should be, the Religion, the\nGovernment, the Commerce, the Manufactures, the Army and Navy of Great\nBritain, are all reduced to the science of pounds, shillings and pence.\nElections appeared to me a mere commercial traffic; mere bargain and\nsale. I have been told by sober, steady freeholders, that \"they never had\nbeen, and never would go to the poll, without being paid for their time,\ntravel and expenses.\" Now, suppose an election for a President of the\nBritish empire. There must be a nomination of candidates by a national\nconvention, Congress, or caucus--in which would be two parties--Whigs\nand Tories. Of course two candidates at least would be nominated. The\nempire is instantly divided into two parties at least. Every man must\nbe paid for his vote by the candidate of his party. The only question\nwould be, which party has the deepest purse. The same reasoning will\napply to elections of Senators and Representatives too. A revolution\nmight destroy the Burroughs and the Inequalities of representation, and\nmight produce more toleration; and these acquisitions might be worth\nall they would cost; but I dread the experiment.\n\nBritain will never be our friend till we are her master.\n\nThis will happen in less time than you and I have been struggling with\nher power; provided we remain united. Aye! there's the rub! I fear there\nwill be greater difficulties to preserve our Union, than you and I, our\nfathers, brothers, friends, disciples and sons have had, to form it.\nTowards Great Britain, I would adopt their own maxim. An English jockey\nsays, \"If I have a wild horse to break, I begin by convincing him I am\nhis master; and then I will convince him that I am his friend.\" I am\nwell assured that nothing will restrain Great Britain from injuring us,\nbut fear.\n\nYou think that \"in a revolution the distinction of Whig and Tory would\ndisappear.\" I cannot believe this. That distinction arises from nature\nand society; is now, and ever will be, time without end, among Negroes,\nIndians, and Tartars, as well as federalists and republicans. Instead of\n\"disappearing since Hume published his history,\" that history has only\nincreased the Tories and diminished the Whigs. That history has been\nthe bane of Great Britain. It has destroyed many of the best effects\nof the revolution of 1688. Style has governed the empire. Swift, Pope\nand Hume, have disgraced all the honest historians. Rapin and Burnet,\nOldmixen and Coke, contain more honest truth than Hume and Clarendon,\nand all their disciples and imitators. But who reads any of them at\nthis day? Every one of the fine arts from the earliest times has been\nenlisted in the service of superstition and despotism. The whole world\nat this day gazes with astonishment at the grossest fictions, because\nthey have been immortalized by the most exquisite artists--Homer and\nMilton, Phideas and Raphael. The rabble of the classic skies, and the\nhosts of Roman Catholic saints and angels, are still adored in paint,\nand marble, and verse. Raphael has sketched the actors and scenes in\nall Apuleus's Amours of Psyche and Cupid. Nothing is too offensive to\nmorals, delicacy, or decency, for this painter. Raphael has painted in\none of the most ostentatious churches in Italy--the Creation--and with\nwhat genius? God Almighty is represented as leaping into chaos, and\nboxing it about with his fists, and kicking it about with his feet, till\nhe tumbles it into order!\n\nNothing is too impious or profane for this great master, who has painted\nso many inimitable virgins and children.\n\nTo help me on in my career of improvement, I have now read four volumes of\nLa Harpe's correspondence with Paul and a Russian minister. Philosophers!\nNever again think of annulling superstition per Saltum. _Testine cente._\n\n\nTO MR. MELLISH.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 31, 1816.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of November 23d, after a very long passage, is received,\nand with it the map which you have been so kind as to send me, for\nwhich I return you many thanks. It is handsomely executed, and on a\nwell-chosen scale; giving a luminous view of the comparative possessions\nof different powers in our America. It is on account of the value I set\non it, that I will make some suggestions. By the charter of Louis XIV.\nall the country comprehending the waters which flow into the Mississippi,\nwas made a part of Louisiana. Consequently its northern boundary was\nthe summit of the highlands in which its northern waters rise. But by\nthe Xth Art. of the Treaty of Utrecht, France and England agreed to\nappoint commissioners to settle the boundary between their possessions\nin that quarter, and those commissioners settled it at the 49th degree\nof latitude. See Hutchinson's Topographical Description of Louisiana, p.\n7. This it was which induced the British Commissioners, in settling the\nboundary with us, to follow the northern water line to the Lake of the\nWoods, at the latitude of 49\u00b0, and then go off on that parallel. This,\nthen, is the true northern boundary of Louisiana.\n\nThe western boundary of Louisiana is, rightfully, the Rio Bravo, (its main\nstream,) from its mouth to its source, and thence along the highlands\nand mountains dividing the waters of the Mississippi from those of the\nPacific. The usurpations of Spain on the east side of that river, have\ninduced geographers to suppose the Puerco or Salado to be the boundary.\nThe line along the highlands stands on the charter of Louis XIV. that of\nthe Rio Bravo, on the circumstance that, when La Salle took possession\nof the Bay of St. Bernard, Panuco was the nearest possession of Spain,\nand the Rio Bravo the natural half-way boundary between them.\n\nOn the waters of the Pacific, we can found no claim in right of Louisiana.\nIf we claim that country at all, it must be on Astor's settlement near\nthe mouth of the Columbia, and the principle of the _jus gentium_ of\nAmerica, that when a civilized nation takes possession of the mouth of\na river in a new country, that possession is considered as including\nall its waters.\n\nThe line of latitude of the southern source of the multnomat might be\nclaimed as appurtenant to Astoria. For its northern boundary, I believe\nan understanding has been come to between our government and Russia,\nwhich might be known from some of its members. I do not know it.\n\nAlthough the irksomeness of writing, which you may perceive from the\npresent letter, and its labor, oblige me now to withdraw from letter\nwriting, yet the wish that your map should set to rights the ideas of our\nown countrymen, as well as foreign nations, as to our correct boundaries,\nhas induced me to make these suggestions, that you may bestow on them\nwhatever inquiry they may merit. I salute you with esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO MRS. ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 11, 1817.\n\nI owe you, dear Madam, a thousand thanks for the letters communicated\nin your favor of December 15th, and now returned. They give me more\ninformation than I possessed before, of the family of Mr. Tracy. But what\nis infinitely interesting, is the scene of the exchange of Louis XVIII.\nfor Bonaparte. What lessons of wisdom Mr. Adams must have read in that\nshort space of time! More than fall to the lot of others in the course\nof a long life. Man, and the man of Paris, under those circumstances,\nmust have been a subject of profound speculation! It would be a singular\naddition to that spectacle, to see the same beast in the cage of St.\nHelena, like a lion in the tower. That is probably the closing verse\nof the chapter of his crimes. But not so with Louis. He has other\nvicissitudes to go through.\n\nI communicated the letters, according to your permission, to my\ngrand-daughter, Ellen Randolph, who read them with pleasure and\nedification. She is justly sensible of, and flattered by your kind\nnotice of her; and additionally so, by the favorable recollections of our\nnorthern visiting friends. If Monticello has anything which has merited\ntheir remembrance, it gives it a value the more in our estimation; and\ncould I, in the spirit of your wish, count backwards a score of years,\nit would not be long before Ellen and myself would pay our homage\npersonally to Quincy. But those twenty years! Alas! where are they? With\nthose beyond the flood. Our next meeting must then be in the country to\nwhich they have flown,--a country for us not now very distant. For this\njourney we shall need neither gold nor silver in our purse, nor scrip,\nnor coats, nor staves. Nor is the provision for it more easy than the\npreparation has been kind. Nothing proves more than this, that the Being\nwho presides over the world is essentially benevolent. Stealing from\nus, one by one, the faculties of enjoyment, searing our sensibilities,\nleading us, like the horse in his mill, round and round the same beaten\ncircle,\n\n ----To see what we have seen,\n To taste the tasted, and at each return\n Less tasteful; o'er our palates to decant\n Another vintage--\n\nUntil satiated and fatigued with this leaden iteration, we ask our own\n_cong\u00e9_. I heard once a very old friend, who had troubled himself with\nneither poets nor philosophers, say the same thing in plain prose, that\nhe was tired of pulling off his shoes and stockings at night, and putting\nthem on again in the morning. The wish to stay here is thus gradually\nextinguished; but not so easily that of returning once, in awhile, to see\nhow things have gone on. Perhaps, however, one of the elements of future\nfelicity is to be a constant and unimpassioned view of what is passing\nhere. If so, this may well supply the wish of occasional visits. Mercier\nhas given us a vision of the year 2440; but prophecy is one thing, and\nhistory another. On the whole, however, perhaps it is wise and well to\nbe contented with the good things which the master of the feast places\nbefore us, and to be thankful for what we have, rather than thoughtful\nabout what we have not. You and I, dear Madam, have already had more than\nan ordinary portion of life, and more, too, of health than the general\nmeasure. On this score I owe boundless thankfulness. Your health was,\nsome time ago, not so good as it has been; and I perceive in the letters\ncommunicated, some complaints still. I hope it is restored; and that\nlife and health may be continued to you as many years as yourself shall\nwish, is the sincere prayer of your affectionate and respectful friend.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 11, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Forty-three volumes read in one year, and twelve of them\nquarto! Dear Sir, how I envy you! Half a dozen octavos in that space\nof time, are as much as I am allowed. I can read by candlelight only,\nand stealing long hours from my rest; nor would that time be indulged\nto me, could I by that light see to write. From sunrise to one or two\no'clock, and often from dinner to dark, I am drudging at the writing\ntable. And all this to answer letters into which neither interest nor\ninclination on my part enters; and often from persons whose names I\nhave never before heard. Yet, writing civilly, it is hard to refuse\nthem civil answers. This is the burthen of my life, a very grievous one\nindeed, and one which I must get rid of. Delaplaine lately requested me\nto give him a line on the subject of his book; meaning, as I well knew,\nto publish it. This I constantly refuse; but in this instance yielded,\nthat in saying a word for him, I might say two for myself. I expressed\nin it freely my sufferings from this source; hoping it would have the\neffect of an indirect appeal to the discretion of those, strangers and\nothers, who, in the most friendly dispositions, oppress me with their\nconcerns, their pursuits, their projects, inventions and speculations,\npolitical, moral, religious, mechanical, mathematical, historical, &c.,\n&c., &c. I hope the appeal will bring me relief, and that I shall be\nleft to exercise and enjoy correspondence with the friends I love, and\non subjects which they, or my own inclinations present. In that case,\nyour letters shall not be so long on my files unanswered, as sometimes\nthey have been, to my great mortification.\n\nTo advert now to the subjects of those of December the 12th and 16th.\nTracy's Commentaries on Montesquieu have never been published in the\noriginal. Duane printed a translation from the original manuscript a\nfew years ago. It sold, I believe, readily, and whether a copy can now\nbe had, I doubt. If it can, you will receive it from my bookseller in\nPhiladelphia, to whom I now write for that purpose. Tracy comprehends,\nunder the word \"Ideology,\" all the subjects which the French term\n_Morale_, as the correlative to _Physique_. His works on Logic,\nGovernment, Political Economy and Morality, he considers as making up the\ncircle of ideological subjects, or of those which are within the scope\nof the understanding, and not of the senses. His Logic occupies exactly\nthe ground of Locke's work on the Understanding. The translation of that\non Political Economy is now printing; but it is no translation of mine.\nI have only had the correction of it, which was, indeed, very laborious.\n_Le premier jet_ having been by some one who understood neither French\nor English, it was impossible to make it more than faithful. But it is\na valuable work.\n\nThe result of your fifty or sixty years of religious reading, in the\nfour words, \"Be just and good,\" is that in which all our inquiries must\nend; as the riddles of all the priesthoods end in four more, \"_ubi panis,\nibi deus_.\" What all agree in, is probably right. What no two agree in,\nmost probably wrong. One of our fan-coloring biographers, who paints\nsmall men as very great, inquired of me lately, with real affection\ntoo, whether he might consider as authentic, the change in my religion\nmuch spoken of in some circles. Now this supposed that they knew what\nhad been my religion before, taking for it the word of their priests,\nwhom I certainly never made the confidants of my creed. My answer was,\n\"say nothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone.\nIts evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has\nbeen _honest and dutiful_ to society, the religion which has regulated\nit cannot be a bad one.\" Affectionately adieu.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM LEE, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 16, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received, three days ago, a letter from M. Martin, 2d Vice\nPresident, and M. Parmantier, Secretary of \"the French Agricultural\nand Manufacturing Society,\" dated at Philadelphia the 5th instant. It\ncovered resolutions proposing to apply to Congress for a grant of two\nhundred and fifty thousand acres of land on the Tombigbee, and stating\nsome of the general principles on which the society was to be founded;\nand their letter requested me to trace for them the basis of a social\npact for the local regulations of their society, and to address the\nanswer to yourself, their 1st Vice President at Washington. No one can\nbe more sensible than I am of the honor of their confidence in me, so\nflatteringly manifested in this resolution; and certainly no one can\nfeel stronger dispositions than myself to be useful to them, as well in\nreturn for this great mark of their respect, as from feelings for the\nsituation of strangers, forced by the misfortunes of their native country\nto seek another by adoption, so distant and so different from that in all\nits circumstances. I commiserate the hardships they have to encounter,\nand equally applaud the resolution with which they meet them, as well\nas the principles proposed for their government. That their emigration\nmay be for the happiness of their descendants, I can believe; but from\nthe knowledge I have of the country they have left, and its state of\nsocial intercourse and comfort, their own personal happiness will undergo\nsevere trial here. The laws, however, which must effect this must flow\nfrom their own habits, their own feelings, and the resources of their\nown minds. No stranger to these could possibly propose regulations\nadapted to them. Every people have their own particular habits, ways of\nthinking, manners, &c., which have grown up with them from their infancy\nare become a part of their nature, and to which the regulations which\nare to make them happy must be accommodated. No member of a foreign\ncountry can have a sufficient sympathy with these. The institutions of\nLycurgus, for example, would not have suited Athens, nor those of Solon,\nLaced\u00e6mon. The organizations of Locke were impracticable for Carolina,\nand those of Rousseau and Mably for Poland. Turning inwardly on myself\nfrom these eminent illustrations of the truth of my observation, I feel\nall the presumption it would manifest, should I undertake to do what this\nrespectable society is alone qualified to do suitably for itself. There\nare some preliminary questions, too, which are particularly for their\nown consideration. Is it proposed that this shall be a separate State?\nor a county of a State? or a mere voluntary association, as those of the\nQuakers, Dunkars, Menonists? A separate State it cannot be, because from\nthe tract it asks it would not be more than twenty miles square; and in\nestablishing new States, regard is had to a certain degree of equality\nin size. If it is to be a county of a State, it cannot be governed by\nits own laws, but must be subject to those of the State of which it is\na part. If merely a voluntary association, the submission of its members\nwill be merely voluntary also; as no act of coercion would be permitted\nby the general law. These considerations must control the society, and\nthemselves alone can modify their own intentions and wishes to them.\nWith this apology for declining a task to which I am so unequal, I pray\nthem to be assured of my sincere wishes for their success and happiness,\nand yourself particularly of my high consideration and esteem.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR THOMAS HUMPHREYS.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 8, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of January 2d did not come to my hands until the\n5th instant. I concur entirely in your leading principles of gradual\nemancipation, of establishment on the coast of Africa, and the patronage\nof our nation until the emigrants shall be able to protect themselves. The\nsubordinate details might be easily arranged. But the bare proposition of\npurchase by the United States generally, would excite infinite indignation\nin all the States north of Maryland. The sacrifice must fall on the States\nalone which hold them; and the difficult question will be how to lessen\nthis so as to reconcile our fellow citizens to it. Personally I am ready\nand desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but\ncomplete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time,\nestablish them elsewhere in freedom and safety. But I have not perceived\nthe growth of this disposition in the rising generation, of which I\nonce had sanguine hopes. No symptoms inform me that it will take place\nin my day. I leave it, therefore, to time, and not at all without hope\nthat the day will come, equally desirable and welcome to us as to them.\nPerhaps the proposition now on the carpet at Washington to provide an\nestablishment on the coast of Africa for voluntary emigrations of people\nof color, may be the corner stone of this future edifice. Praying for\nits completion as early as may most promote the good of all, I salute\nyou with great esteem and respect.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, April 19, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--My loving and beloved friend Pickering, has been pleased to\ninform the world that I have \"few friends.\" I wanted to whip the rogue,\nand I had it in my power, if it had been in my will to do it, till the\nblood came. But all my real friends, as I thought then, with Dexter and\nGray at their head, insisted \"that I should not say a word; that nothing\nthat such a person could write would do me the least injury; that it\nwould betray the constitution and the government, if a President, out or\nin, should enter into a newspaper controversy with one of his ministers,\nwhom he had removed from his office, in justification of himself for\nthat removal, or anything else;\" and they talked a great deal about the\nDIGNITY of the office of President, which I do not find that any other\nperson, public or private regards very much.\n\nNevertheless, I fear that Mr. Pickering's information is too true. It\nis impossible that any man should run such a gauntlet as I have been\ndriven through, and have many friends at last. This \"all who know me\nknow,\" though I cannot say; who love me, tell.\n\nI have, however, either friends who wish to amuse and solace my old age,\nor enemies who mean to heap coals of fire on my head, and kill me with\nkindness; for they overwhelm me with books from all quarters, enough\nto obfuscate all eyes, and smother and stifle all human understanding.\nChateaubriand, Grimm, Tucker, Dupuis, La Harpe, Sismondi, Eustace, a\nnew translation of Herodotus, by Bedloe, with more notes than text.\nWhat should I do with all this lumber? I make my \"woman-kind,\" as the\nantiquary expresses it, read to me all the English, but as they will\nnot read the French, I am obliged to excruciate my eyes to read it\nmyself; and all to what purpose? I verily believe I was as wise and\ngood, seventy years ago, as I am now. At that period Lemuel Bryant was\nmy parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was\na jolly, jocular, and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a\ngentleman; but a bigoted Episcopalian, of the school of Bishop Saunders,\nand Dr. Hicks,--a downright conscientious, passive obedience man, in\nChurch and State. The parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but\nwere eternally disputing about government and religion. One day, when\nthe schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical, and declared \"if\nhe were a monarch, _he would have but one religion in his dominions_;\"\nthe parson coolly replied, \"Cleverly! you would be the best man in the\nworld if you had no religion.\"\n\nTwenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of\nbreaking out, \"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there\nwere no religion in it!!!\" But in this exclamation I should have been\nas fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would\nbe something not fit to be mentioned in polite society, I mean hell. So\nfar from believing in the total and universal depravity of human nature,\nI believe there is no individual totally depraved. The most abandoned\nscoundrel that ever existed, never yet wholly extinguished his conscience,\nand while conscience remains there is some religion. Popes, Jesuits, and\nSorbonists, and Inquisitors, have some conscience and some religion. So\nhad Marius and Sylla, C\u00e6sar, Catiline and Antony; and Augustus had not\nmuch more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.\n\nWhat shall we think of Virgil and Horace, Sallust, Quintilian, Pliny, and\neven Tacitus? and even Cicero, Brutus and Seneca? Pompey I leave out of\nthe question, as a mere politician and soldier. Every one of the great\ncreatures has left indelible marks of conscience, and consequently of\nreligion, though every one of them has left abundant proofs of profligate\nviolations of their consciences by their little and great passions and\npaltry interests.\n\nThe vast prospect of mankind, which these books have passed in review\nbefore me, from the most ancient records, histories, traditions and\nfables, that remain to us to the present day, has sickened my very soul,\nand almost reconciled me to Swift's travels among the Yahoos; yet I never\ncan be a misanthrope--_Homo sum_. I must hate myself before I can hate\nmy fellow men; and that I cannot, and will not do. No! I will not hate\nany of them, base, brutal, and devilish as some of them have been to me.\n\nFrom the bottom of my soul, I pity my fellow men. Fears and terrors\nappear to have produced an universal credulity. Fears of calamities in\nlife, and punishments after death, seem to have possessed the souls of\nall men. But fear of pain and death, here, do not seem to have been so\nunconquerable, as fear of what is to come hereafter. Priests, Hierophants,\nPopes, Despots, Emperors, Kings, Princes, Nobles, have been as credulous\nas shoe-blacks, boots and kitchen scullions. The former seem to have\nbelieved in their divine rights as sincerely as the latter.\n\n_Auto de fe\u00e9s_, in Spain and Portugal, have been celebrated with as\ngood faith as excommunications have been practised in Connecticut, or\nas baptisms have been refused in Philadelphia.\n\nHow is it possible that mankind should submit to be governed, as they\nhave been, is to me an inscrutable mystery. How they could bear to be\ntaxed to build the temple of Diana at Ephesus, the pyramids of Egypt,\nSaint Peter's at Rome, Notre Dame at Paris, St. Paul's in London, with\na million et ceteras, when my navy yards and my quasi army made such a\npopular clamor, I know not. Yet all my peccadillos never excited such\na rage as the late compensation law!\n\nI congratulate you on the late election in Connecticut. It is a kind of\nepocha. Several causes have conspired. One which you would not suspect.\nSome one, no doubt instigated by the devil, has taken it into his head\nto print a new edition of the \"Independent Whig,\" even in Connecticut,\nand has scattered the volumes through the State. These volumes, it is\nsaid, have produced a burst of indignation against priestcraft, bigotry\nand intolerance, and in conjunction with other causes, have produced\nthe late election.\n\nWhen writing to you I never know when to subscribe,\n\n J. A.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 5, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Absences and avocations had prevented my acknowledging your\nfavor of February the 2d, when that of April the 19th arrived. I had\nnot the pleasure of receiving the former by the hands of Mr. Lyman.\nHis business probably carried him in another direction; for I am far\ninland, and distant from the great line of communication between the\ntrading cities. Your recommendations are always welcome, for indeed,\nthe subjects of them always merit that welcome, and some of them in\nan extraordinary degree. They make us acquainted with what there is\nexcellent in our ancient sister State of Massachusetts, once venerated\nand beloved, and still hanging on our hopes, for what need we despair\nof after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberality. I\nhad believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and\nabhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other\nStates a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where\ntheir forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works,\nand to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations good or bad. I\njoin you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the\npriesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no\nlonger to disgrace the American history and character. If by _religion_\nwe are to understand _sectarian dogmas_, in which no two of them agree,\nthen your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, \"that this would be\nthe best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.\" But\nif the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical\nconstitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines\nof philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which\nall agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be,\nas you again say, \"something not fit to be named, even indeed, a hell.\"\n\nYou certainly acted wisely in taking no notice of what the malice of\nPickering could say of you. Were such things to be answered, our lives\nwould be wasted in the filth of fendings and provings, instead of\nbeing employed in promoting the happiness and prosperity of our fellow\ncitizens. The tenor of your life is the proper and sufficient answer. It\nis fortunate for those in public trust, that posterity will judge them\nby their works, and not by the malignant vituperations and invectives\nof the Pickerings and Gardiners of their age. After all, men of energy\nof character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every\nquestion, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect,\nthose who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as\nthey feel that effect. Thus, in the revolution, Hancock and the Adamses\nwere the raw-head and bloody bones of tories and traitors who yet knew\nnothing of you personally but what was good. I do not entertain your\napprehensions for the happiness of our brother Madison in a state of\nretirement. Such a mind as his, fraught with information and with matter\nfor reflection, can never know _ennui_. Besides, there will always be\nwork enough cut out for him to continue his active usefulness to his\ncountry. For example, he and Monroe (the President) are now here on the\nwork of a collegiate institution to be established in our neighborhood,\nof which they and myself are three of six visitors. This, if it succeeds,\nwill raise up children for Mr. Madison to employ his attention through\nlife. I say if it succeeds; for we have two very essential wants in our\nway, first, means to compass our views; and, second, men qualified to\nfulfil them. And these, you will agree, are essential wants indeed.\n\nI am glad to find you have a copy of Sismondi, because his is a field\nfamiliar to you, and on which you can judge him. His work is highly\npraised, but I have not yet read it. I have been occupied and delighted\nwith reading another work, the title of which did not promise much\nuseful information or amusement, \"_l'Italia avanti il dominio dei Romani\ndal Micali_.\" It has often, you know, been a subject of regret, that\nCarthage had no writer to give her side of her own history, while her\nwealth, power and splendor, prove she must have had a very distinguished\npolicy and government. Micali has given the counterpart of the Roman\nhistory, for the nations over which they extended their dominion. For\nthis he has gleaned up matter from every quarter, and furnished materials\nfor reflection and digestion to those who, thinking as they read, have\nperceived that there was a great deal of matter behind the curtain, could\nthat be fully withdrawn. He certainly gives new views of a nation whose\nsplendor has masked and palliated their barbarous ambition. I am now\nreading Botta's history of our own Revolution. Bating the ancient practice\nwhich he has adopted, of putting speeches into mouths which never made\nthem, and fancying motives of action which we never felt, he has given\nthat history with more detail, precision and candor, than any writer I\nhave yet met with. It is, to be sure, compiled from those writers; but\nit is a good secretion of their matter, the pure from the impure, and\npresented in a just sense of right, in opposition to usurpation.\n\nAccept assurances for Mrs. Adams and yourself of my affectionate esteem\nand respect.\n\n\nTO DR. JOSEPHUS B. STUART.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 10, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of April 2d is duly received. I am very sensible of\nthe partiality with which you are so good as to review the course I have\nheld in public life, and I have also to be thankful to my fellow-citizens\nfor a like indulgence generally shown to my endeavors to be useful to\nthem. They give quite as much credit as is merited to the difficulties\nsupposed to attend the public administration. There are no mysteries in\nit. Difficulties indeed sometimes arise; but common sense and honest\nintentions will generally steer through them, and, where they cannot\nbe surmounted, I have ever seen the well-intentioned part of our fellow\ncitizens sufficiently disposed not to look for impossibilities. We all\nknow that a farm, however large, is not more difficult to direct than\na garden, and does not call for more attention or skill.\n\nI hope with you that the policy of our country will settle down with as\nmuch navigation and commerce only as our own exchanges will require, and\nthat the disadvantage will be seen of our undertaking to carry on that\nof other nations. This, indeed, may bring gain to a few individuals, and\nenable them to call off from our farms more laborers to be converted into\nlackeys and grooms for them, but it will bring nothing to our country\nbut wars, debt, and dilapidation. This has been the course of England,\nand her examples have fearful influence on us. In copying her we do\nnot seem to consider that like premises induce like consequences. The\nbank mania is one of the most threatening of these imitations. It is\nraising up a monied aristocracy in our country which has already set the\ngovernment at defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little\non this first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded\nand unyielding. These have taken deep root in the hearts of that class\nfrom which our legislators are drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable\nhas become history. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf\nof the bad, and thus those whom the constitution had placed as guards\nto its portals, are sophisticated or suborned from their duties. That\npaper money has some advantages, is admitted. But that its abuses also\nare inevitable, and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery\nof all private property, cannot be denied. Shall we ever be able to put\na constitutional veto on it?\n\nYou say I must go to writing history. While in public life I had not time,\nand now that I am retired, I am past the time. To write history requires\na whole life of observation, of inquiry, of labor and correction. Its\nmaterials are not to be found among the ruins of a decayed memory. At\nthis day I should begin where I ought to have left off. The \"_solve senes\ncentem equum_,\" is a precept we learn in youth but for the practice of\nage; and were I to disregard it, it would be but a proof the more of its\nsoundness. If anything has ever merited to me the respect of my fellow\ncitizens, themselves, I hope, would wish me not to lose it by exposing\nthe decay of faculties of which it was the reward. I must then, dear Sir,\nleave to yourself and your brethren of the rising generation, to arraign\nat your tribunal the actions of your predecessors, and to pronounce the\nsentence they may have merited or incurred. If the sacrifices of that\nage have resulted in the good of this, then all is well, and we shall\nbe rewarded by their approbation, and shall be authorized to say, \"go\nye and do likewise.\" To yourself I tender personally the assurance of\nmy great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 14, 1817.\n\nAlthough, dear Sir, much retired from the world, and meddling little\nin its concerns, yet I think it almost a religious duty to salute at\ntimes my old friends, were it only to say and to know that \"all's well.\"\nOur hobby has been politics; but all here is so quiet, and with you so\ndesperate, that little matter is furnished us for active attention. With\nyou too, it has long been forbidden ground, and therefore imprudent for a\nforeign friend to tread, in writing to you. But although our speculations\nmight be intrusive, our prayers cannot but be acceptable, and mine are\nsincerely offered for the well-being of France. What government she can\nbear, depends not on the state of science, however exalted, in a select\nband of enlightened men, but on the condition of the general mind.\nThat, I am sure, is advanced and will advance; and the last change of\ngovernment was fortunate, inasmuch as the new will be less obstructive\nto the effects of that advancement. For I consider your foreign military\noppressions as an ephemeral obstacle only.\n\nHere all is quiet. The British war has left us in debt; but that is\na cheap price for the good it has done us. The establishment of the\nnecessary manufactures among ourselves, the proof that our government\nis solid, can stand the shock of war, and is superior even to civil\nschism, are precious facts for us; and of these the strongest proofs\nwere furnished, when, with four eastern States tied to us, as dead to\nliving bodies, all doubt was removed as to the achievements of the war,\nhad it continued. But its best effect has been the complete suppression\nof party. The federalists who were truly American, and their great mass\nwas so, have separated from their brethren who were mere Anglomen, and\nare received with cordiality into the republican ranks. Even Connecticut,\nas a State, and the last one expected to yield its steady habits (which\nwere essentially bigoted in politics as well as religion), has chosen a\nrepublican governor, and republican legislature. Massachusetts indeed\nstill lags; because most deeply involved in the parricide crimes and\ntreasons of the war. But her gangrene is contracting, the sound flesh\nadvancing on it, and all there will be well. I mentioned Connecticut as\nthe most hopeless of our States. Little Delaware had escaped my attention.\nThat is essentially a Quaker State, the fragment of a religious sect\nwhich, there, in the other States, in England, are a homogeneous mass,\nacting with one mind, and that directed by the mother society in England.\nDispersed, as the Jews, they still form, as those do, one nation, foreign\nto the land they live in. They are Protestant Jesuits, implicitly devoted\nto the will of their superior, and forgetting all duties to their country\nin the execution of the policy of their order. When war is proposed with\nEngland, they have religious scruples; but when with France, these are\nlaid by, and they become clamorous for it. They are, however, silent,\npassive, and give no other trouble than of whipping them along. Nor is\nthe election of Monroe an inefficient circumstance in our felicities.\nFour and twenty years, which he will accomplish, of administration in\nrepublican forms and principles, will so consecrate them in the eyes of\nthe people as to secure them against the danger of change. The evanition\nof party dissensions has harmonized intercourse, and sweetened society\nbeyond imagination. The war then has done us all this good, and the\nfurther one of assuring the world, that although attached to peace from\na sense of its blessings, we will meet war when it is made necessary.\n\nI wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. The achievement\nof their independence of Spain is no longer a question. But it is a very\nserious one, what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like\nother insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under\nmilitary despotism, and become the murderous tools of the ambition of\ntheir respective Bonapartes; and whether this will be for their greater\nhappiness, the rule of one only has taught you to judge. No one, I hope,\ncan doubt my wish to see them and all mankind exercising self-government,\nand capable of exercising it. But the question is not what we wish,\nbut what is practicable? As their sincere friend and brother then, I do\nbelieve the best thing for them, would be for themselves to come to an\naccord with Spain, under the guarantee of France, Russia, Holland, and\nthe United States, allowing to Spain a nominal supremacy, with authority\nonly to keep the peace among them, leaving them otherwise all the powers\nof self-government, until their experience in them, their emancipation\nfrom their priests, and advancement in information, shall prepare them for\ncomplete independence. I exclude England from this confederacy, because\nher selfish principles render her incapable of honorable patronage or\ndisinterested co-operation; unless, indeed, what seems now probable, a\nrevolution should restore to her an honest government, one which will\npermit the world to live in peace. Portugal grasping at an extension\nof her dominion in the south, has lost her great northern province of\nPernambuco, and I shall not wonder if Brazil should revolt in mass, and\nsend their royal family back to Portugal. Brazil is more populous, more\nwealthy, more energetic, and as wise as Portugal. I have been insensibly\nled, my dear friend, while writing to you, to indulge in that line of\nsentiment in which we have been always associated, forgetting that these\nare matters not belonging to my time. Not so with you, who have still\nmany years to be a spectator of these events. That these years may indeed\nbe many and happy, is the sincere prayer of your affectionate friend.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, May 18, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Lyman was mortified that he could not visit Monticello. He\nis gone to Europe a second time. I regret that he did not see you, he\nwould have executed any commission for you in the literary line, at any\npain or any expense. I have many apprehensions for his health, which is\nvery delicate and precarious, but he is seized with the mania of all\nour young clerical spirits for foreign travel; I fear they will lose\nmore than they acquire, they will lose that unadulterated enthusiasm for\ntheir native country, which has produced the greatest characters among\nus.\n\nOh! Lord! Do you think that Protestant Popedom is annihilated in America?\nDo you recollect, or have you ever attended to the ecclesiastical strifes\nin Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and every part of New England? What\na mercy it is that these people cannot whip, and crop, and pillory,\nand roast, _as yet_ in the United States! If they could, they would.\nDo you know the General of the Jesuits, and consequently all his host,\nhave their eyes on this country? Do you know that the Church of England\nis employing more means and more art, to propagate their demi-popery\namong us, than ever? Quakers, Anabaptists, Moravians, Swedenborgians,\nMethodists, Unitarians, Nothingarians in all Europe are employing\nunderhand means to propagate their sectarian system in these States.\n\nThe multitude and diversity of them, you will say, is our security against\nthem all. God grant it. But if we consider that the Presbyterians and\nMethodists are far the most numerous and the most likely to unite, let\na George Whitefield arise, with a military cast, like Mahomet or Loyola,\nand what will become of all the other sects who can never unite?\n\nMy friends or enemies continue to overwhelm me with books. Whatever may\nbe their intention, charitable or otherwise, they certainly contribute\nto continue me to vegetate, much as I have done for the sixteen years\nlast past.\n\nSir John Malcolm's history of Persia, and Sir William Jones' works, are\nnow poured out upon me, and a little cargo is coming from Europe. What\ncan I do with all this learned lumber? Is it necessary to salvation to\ninvestigate all these Cosmogonies and Mythologies? Are Bryant, Gebelin,\nDupuis, or Sir William Jones, right? What a frown upon mankind was the\npremature death of Sir William Jones! Why could not Jones and Dupuis\nhave conversed or corresponded with each other? Had Jones read Dupuis,\nor Dupuis Jones, the works of both would be immensely improved, though\neach would probably have adhered to his system.\n\nI should admire to see a counsel composed of Gebelin, Bryant, Jones and\nDupuis. Let them live together and compare notes. The human race ought\nto contribute to furnish them with all the books in the Universe, and\nthe means of subsistence.\n\nI am not expert enough in Italian to read Botta, and I know not that\nhe has been translated. Indeed, I have been so little satisfied with\nhistories of the American revolution, that I have long since ceased to\nread them. The truth is lost, in adulatory panegyrics, and in vituperary\ninsolence. I wish you, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe, success in your\ncollegiate institution. And I wish that superstition in religion, exciting\nsuperstition in politics, and both united in directing military force,\nalias glory, may never blow up all your benevolent and philanthropic\nlucubrations. But the history of all ages is against you.\n\nIt is said that no effort in favor of virtue is ever lost. I doubt whether\nit was ever true; whether it is now true; but hope it will be true. In\nthe moral government of the world, no doubt it was, is, and ever will\nbe true; but it has not yet appeared to be true on this earth.\n\nI am, Sir, sincerely your friend.\n\nP. S. Have you seen the Philosophy of Human Nature, and the History of\nthe War in the western States, from Kentucky? How vigorously science\nand literature spring up, as well as patriotism and heroism, in\ntransalleganian regions? Have you seen Wilkinson's history? &c., &c.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, May 26, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Mr. Leslie Combes of Kentucky has sent me a history of the\nlate war, in the western country, by Mr. Robert B. M'Siffee, and the\nPhilosophy of Human Nature, by Joseph Buchanan. The history I am glad\nto see, because it will preserve facts to the honor and immortal glory\nof the western people. Indeed, I am not sorry that the Philosophy has\nbeen published, because it has been a maxim with me for sixty years at\nleast, never to be afraid of a book.\n\nNevertheless, I cannot foresee much utility in reviewing, in this\ncountry, the controversy between the Spiritualists and the Materialists.\nWhy should time be wasted in disputing about two substances, when both\nparties agree that neither knows anything about either.\n\nIf spirit is an abstraction, a conjecture, a chimera; matter is an\nabstraction, a conjecture, a chimera; for we know as much, or rather as\nlittle, about one as the other. We may read Cudworth, Le Clerc, Leibnitz,\nBerkley, Hume, Bolingbroke and Priestley, and a million other volumes in\nall ages, and be obliged at last to confess that we have learned nothing.\nSpirit and matter still remain riddles. Define the terms, however, and\nthe controversy is soon settled. If spirit is an active something, and\nmatter an inactive something, it is certain that one is not the other. We\ncan no more conceive that extension, or solidity, can think, or feel, or\nsee, or hear, or taste, or smell; than we can conceive that perception,\nmemory, imagination, or reason, can remove a mountain, or blow a rock.\nThis enigma has puzzled mankind from the beginning, and probably will\nto the end. Economy of time requires that we should waste no more in so\nidle an amusement.\n\nIn the eleventh discourse of Sir William Jones, before the Asiatic\nSociety, vol. iii., page 229, of his works, we find that Materialists\nand Immaterialists existed in India, and that they accused each other of\natheism, before Berkley, or Priestley, or Dupuis, or Plato, or Pythagoras,\nwere born.\n\nIndeed, Newton himself appears to have discovered nothing that was\nnot known to the ancient Indians. He has only furnished more complete\ndemonstrations of the doctrines they taught. Sir John Malcolm agrees\nwith Jones and Dupuis, in the Astrological origin of heathen mythologies.\nVain man! mind your own business! Do no wrong;--do all the good you can!\nEat your canvas-back ducks! Drink your Burgundy! Sleep your siesta when\nnecessary, and TRUST IN GOD!\n\nWhat a mighty bubble, what a tremendous waterspout, has Napoleon been,\naccording to his life, written by himself! He says he was the creature\nof the principles and manners of the age; by which, no doubt, he means\nthe age of Reason; the progress of Manilius' Ratio, of Plato's Logos,\n&c. I believe him. A whirlwind raised him, and a whirlwind blowed him\naway to St. Helena. He is very confident that the age of Reason is not\npast, and so am I; but I hope that Reason will never again rashly and\nhastily create such creatures as him. Liberty, equality, fraternity,\nand humanity, will never again, I hope, blindly surrender themselves\nto an unbounded ambition for national conquests, nor implicitly commit\nthemselves to the custody and guardianship of arms and heroes. If they\ndo, they will again end in St. Helena, Inquisitions, Jesuits, and _sacre\nliques_.\n\nPoor Laureate Southey is writhing in torments under the laugh of the\nthree kingdoms, all Europe, and America, upon the publication of his \"Wat\nTyler.\" I wonder whether he or Bonaparte suffers most. I congratulate\nyou, and Madison, and Monroe, on your noble employment in founding a\nuniversity. From such a noble Triumvirate, the world will expect something\nvery great and very new; but if it contains anything quite original, and\nvery excellent, I fear the prejudices are too deeply rooted to suffer\nit to last long, though it may be accepted at first. It will not always\nhave three such colossal reputations to support it.\n\nThe Pernambuco Ambassador, his Secretary of legation, and private\nSecretary, respectable people, have made me a visit. Having been some\nyear or two in a similar situation, I could not but sympathize with him.\nAs Bonaparte says, the age of Reason is not ended. Nothing can totally\nextinguish, or eclipse the light which has been shed abroad by the press.\n\nI am, Sir, with hearty wishes for your health and happiness, your friend\nand humble servant.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR JOHN MANNERS.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 12, 1817.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the\nincreasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the\nwriting-table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.\n\nMy opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the\nyear 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn\nby myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of\nexercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right\nto life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness,\nis not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but\nis impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the\ncharters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he\nhas made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he\nhas left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may\nsafely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on\nwhich Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line\nwhich she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly\ndoes not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might\nsafely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage,\nwhich has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another\nwhich refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most\nrespectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of\none in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have\nno law but that of Nature, we all know.\n\nThough long estranged from legal reading and reasoning, and little\nfamiliar with the decisions of particular judges, I have considered that\nrespecting the obligation of the common law in this country as a very\nplain one, and merely a question of document. If we are under that law,\nthe document which made us so can surely be produced; and as far as this\ncan be produced, so far we are subject to it, and farther we are not. Most\nof the States did, I believe, at an early period of their legislation,\nadopt the English law, common and statute, more or less in a body, as\nfar as localities admitted of their application. In these States, then,\nthe common law, so far as adopted, is the _lex-loci_. Then comes the law\nof Congress, declaring that what is law in any State, shall be the rule\nof decision in their courts, as to matters arising within that State,\nexcept when controlled by their own statutes. But this law of Congress\nhas been considered as extending to civil cases only; and that no such\nprovision has been made for criminal ones. A similar provision, then,\nfor criminal offences, would, in like manner, be an adoption of more or\nless of the common law, as part of the _lex-loci_, where the offence\nis committed; and would cover the whole field of legislation for the\ngeneral government. I have turned to the passage you refer to in Judge\nCooper's Justinian, and should suppose the general expressions there\nused would admit of modifications conformable to this doctrine. It would\nalarm me indeed, in any case, to find myself entertaining an opinion\ndifferent from that of a judgment so accurately organized as his. But I\nam quite persuaded that, whenever Judge Cooper shall be led to consider\nthat question simply and nakedly, it is so much within his course of\nthinking, as liberal as logical, that, rejecting all blind and undefined\nobligation, he will hold to the positive and explicit precepts of the\nlaw alone. Accept these hasty sentiments on the subjects you propose,\nas hazarded in proof of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO BARON HUMBOLDT.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 13, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The receipt of your Distributio Geographica Plantarum, with\nthe duty of thanking you for a work which sheds so much new and valuable\nlight on botanical science, excites the desire, also, of presenting\nmyself to your recollection, and of expressing to you those sentiments\nof high admiration and esteem, which, although long silent, have never\nslept. The physical information you have given us of a country hitherto so\nshamefully unknown, has come exactly in time to guide our understandings\nin the great political revolution now bringing it into prominence on the\nstage of the world. The issue of its struggles, as they respect Spain,\nis no longer matter of doubt. As it respects their own liberty, peace and\nhappiness, we cannot be quite so certain. Whether the blinds of bigotry,\nthe shackles of the priesthood, and the fascinating glare of rank and\nwealth, give fair play to the common sense of the mass of their people,\nso far as to qualify them for self-government, is what we do not know.\nPerhaps our wishes may be stronger than our hopes. The first principle\nof republicanism is, that the _lex-majoris partis_ is the fundamental law\nof every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of\nthe society enounced by the majority of a single vote, as sacred as if\nunanimous, is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which\nis thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but\nthat of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism. This has\nbeen the history of the French revolution, and I wish the understanding\nof our Southern brethren may be sufficiently enlarged and firm to see\nthat their fate depends on its sacred observance.\n\nIn our America we are turning to public improvements. Schools, roads,\nand canals, are everywhere either in operation or contemplation. The\nmost gigantic undertaking yet proposed, is that of New York, for drawing\nthe waters of Lake Erie into the Hudson. The distance is 353 miles,\nand the height to be surmounted 661 feet. The expense will be great,\nbut its effect incalculably powerful in favor of the Atlantic States.\nInternal navigation by steamboats is rapidly spreading through all our\nStates, and that by sails and oars will ere long be looked back to as\namong the curiosities of antiquity. We count much, too, on its efficacy\nfor harbor defence; and it will soon be tried for navigation by sea.\nWe consider the employment of the contributions which our citizens can\nspare, after feeding, and clothing, and lodging themselves comfortably,\nas more useful, more moral, and even more splendid, than that preferred\nby Europe, of destroying human life, labor and happiness.\n\nI write this letter without knowing where it will find you. But wherever\nthat may be, I am sure it will find you engaged in something instructive\nfor man. If at Paris, you are of course in habits of society with Mr.\nGallatin, our worthy, our able, and excellent minister, who will give\nyou, from time to time, the details of the progress of a country in\nwhose prosperity you are so good as to feel an interest, and in which\nyour name is revered among those of the great worthies of the world. God\nbless you, and preserve you long to enjoy the gratitude of your fellow\nmen, and to be blessed with honors, health and happiness.\n\n\nTO M. DE MARBOIS.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 14, 1817.\n\nI thank you, dear Sir, for the copy of the interesting narrative of\nthe Complet d'Arnold, which you have been so kind as to send me. It\nthrows light on that incident of history which we did not possess\nbefore. An incident which merits to be known, as a lesson to mankind,\nin all its details. This mark of your attention recalls to my mind the\nearlier period of life at which I had the pleasure of your personal\nacquaintance, and renews the sentiments of high respect and esteem\nwith which that acquaintance inspired me. I had not failed to accompany\nyour personal sufferings during the civil convulsions of your country,\nand had sincerely sympathized with them. An awful period, indeed, has\npassed in Europe since our first acquaintance. When I left France at the\nclose of '89, your revolution was, as I thought, under the direction of\nable and honest men. But the madness of some of their successors, the\nvices of others, the malicious intrigues of an envious and corrupting\nneighbor, the tracasserie of the Directory, the usurpations, the havoc,\nand devastations of your Attila, and the equal usurpations, depredations\nand oppressions of your hypocritical deliverers, will form a mournful\nperiod in the history of man, a period of which the last chapter will not\nbe seen in your day or mine, and one which I still fear is to be written\nin characters of blood. Had Bonaparte reflected that such is the moral\nconstruction of the world, that no national crime passes unpunished in\nthe long run, he would not now be in the cage of St. Helena; and were\nyour present oppressors to reflect on the same truth, they would spare\nto their own countries the penalties on their present wrongs which will\nbe inflicted on them on future times. The seeds of hatred and revenge\nwhich they are now sowing with a large hand, will not fail to produce\ntheir fruits in time. Like their brother robbers on the highway, they\nsuppose the escape of the moment a final escape, and deem infamy and\nfuture risk countervailed by present gain. Our lot has been happier.\nWhen you witnessed our first struggles in the war of independence, you\nlittle calculated, more than we did, on the rapid growth and prosperity\nof this country; on the practical demonstration it was about to exhibit,\nof the happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only\nrendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on\nhim by the wicked acts of his tyrants.\n\nI have much confidence that we shall proceed successfully for ages to\ncome, and that, contrary to the principle of Montesquieu, it will be\nseen that the larger the extent of country, the more firm its republican\nstructure, if founded, not on conquest, but in principles of compact and\nequality. My hope of its duration is built much on the enlargement of the\nresources of life going hand in hand with the enlargement of territory,\nand the belief that men are disposed to live honestly, if the means of\ndoing so are open to them. With the consolation of this belief in the\nfuture result of our labors, I have that of other prophets who foretell\ndistant events, that I shall not live to see it falsified. My theory\nhas always been, that if we are to dream, the flatteries of hope are as\ncheap, and pleasanter than the gloom of despair. I wish to yourself a\nlong life of honors, health and happiness.\n\n\nTO ALBERT GALLATIN.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 16, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The importance that the enclosed letters should safely reach\ntheir destination, impels me to avail myself of the protection of your\ncover. This is an inconvenience to which your situation exposes you,\nwhile it adds to the opportunities of exercising yourself in works of\ncharity.\n\nAccording to the opinion I hazarded to you a little before your\ndeparture, we have had almost an entire change in the body of Congress.\nThe unpopularity of the compensation law was completed, by the manner\nof repealing it as to all the world except themselves. In some States,\nit is said, every member is changed; in all, many. What opposition there\nwas to the original law, was chiefly from southern members. Yet many of\nthose have been left out, because they received the advanced wages. I\nhave never known so unanimous a sentiment of disapprobation; and what\nis remarkable is, that it was spontaneous. The newspapers were almost\nentirely silent, and the people not only unled by their leaders, but\nin opposition to them. I confess I was highly pleased with this proof\nof the innate good sense, the vigilance, and the determination of the\npeople to act for themselves.\n\nAmong the laws of the late Congress, some were of note; a navigation\nact, particularly, applicable to those nations only who have navigation\nacts; pinching one of them especially, not only in the general way, but\nin the intercourse with her foreign possessions. This part may re-act\non us, and it remains for trial which may bear longest. A law respecting\nour conduct as a neutral between Spain and her contending colonies, was\npassed by a majority of one only, I believe, and against the very general\nsentiment of our country. It is thought to strain our complaisance to\nSpain beyond her right or merit, and almost against the right of the\nother party, and certainly against the claims they have to our good\nwishes and neighborly relations. That we should wish to see the people\nof other countries free, is as natural, and at least as justifiable, as\nthat one King should wish to see the Kings of other countries maintained\nin their despotism. Right to both parties, innocent favor to the juster\ncause, is our proper sentiment.\n\nYou will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing\nboth Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded,\navowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution which\nauthorizes Congress \"to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the\ngeneral welfare,\" was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated\nto whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was\nthe federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is\nalmost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the\nrepublicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the\ngeneral welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated;\nand that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but\nby the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant\nthey should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place\nunder their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a\nlimitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. I think the\npassage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will\ncertainly concede the power; and this will be a national confirmation\nof the grounds of appeal to them, and will settle forever the meaning of\nthis phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the\nGeneral Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase, \"to\nlay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,\" it is a\nmere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by\nthe first or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally\ndecided by the exact definition of powers immediately following. It is\nfortunate for another reason, as the States, in conceding the power,\nwill modify it, either by requiring the federal ratio of expense in each\nState, or otherwise, so as to secure us against its partial exercise.\nWithout this caution, intrigue, negotiation, and the barter of votes\nmight become as habitual in Congress, as they are in those legislatures\nwhich have the appointment of officers, and which, with us, is called\n\"logging,\" the term of the farmers for their exchanges of aid in rolling\ntogether the logs of their newly-cleared grounds. Three of our papers\nhave presented us the copy of an act of the legislature of New York,\nwhich, if it has really passed, will carry us back to the times of the\ndarkest bigotry and barbarism, to find a parallel. Its purport is, that\nall those who shall _hereafter_ join in communion with the religious\nsect of Shaking Quakers, shall be deemed civilly dead, their marriages\ndissolved, and all their children and property taken out of their\nhands. This act being published nakedly in the papers, without the usual\nsignatures, or any history of the circumstances of its passage, I am not\nwithout a hope it may have been a mere abortive attempt. It contrasts\nsingularly with a cotemporary vote of the Pennsylvania legislature, who,\non a proposition to make the belief in God a necessary qualification for\noffice, rejected it by a great majority, although assuredly there was\nnot a single atheist in their body. And you remember to have heard, that\nwhen the act for religious freedom was before the Virginia Assembly, a\nmotion to insert the name of Jesus Christ before the phrase, \"the author\nof our holy religion,\" which stood in the bill, was rejected, although\nthat was the creed of a great majority of them.\n\nI have been charmed to see that a Presidential election now produces\nscarcely any agitation. On Mr. Madison's election there was little,\non Monroe's all but none. In Mr. Adams' time and mine, parties were so\nnearly balanced as to make the struggle fearful for our peace. But since\nthe decided ascendency of the republican body, federalism has looked on\nwith silent but unresisting anguish. In the middle, southern and western\nStates, it is as low as it ever can be; for nature has made some men\nmonarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there\nalways will be.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have had a remarkably cold winter. At Hallowell, in Maine, the mercury\nwas at thirty-four degrees below zero, of Fahrenheit, which is sixteen\ndegrees lower than it was in Paris in 1788-9. Here it was at six degrees\nabove zero, which is our greatest degree of cold.\n\nPresent me respectfully to Mrs. Gallatin, and be assured of my constant\nand affectionate friendship.\n\n\nTO MR. ADAMS.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, September 8, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--A month's absence from Monticello has added to the delay of\nacknowledging your last letters, and indeed for a month before I left it,\nour projected college gave me constant employment; for, being the only\nvisitor in its immediate neighborhood, all its administrative business\nfalls on me, and that, where building is going on, is not a little. In\nyours of July 15th, you express a wish to see our plan, but the present\nvisitors have sanctioned no plan as yet. Our predecessors, the first\ntrustees, had desired me to propose one to them, and it was on that\noccasion I asked and received the benefit of your ideas on the subject.\nDigesting these with such other schemes as I had been able to collect, I\nmade out a prospectus, the looser and less satisfactory from the uncertain\namount of the funds to which it was to be adapted. This I addressed, in\nthe form of a letter, to their President, Peter Carr, which, going before\nthe legislature when a change in the constitution of the college was\nasked, got into the public papers, and, among others, I think you will\nfind it in Niles' Register, in the early part of 1815. This, however,\nis to be considered but as a _premiere ebauche_, for the consideration\nand amendment of the present visitors, and to be accommodated to one of\ntwo conditions of things. If the institution is to depend on private\ndonations alone, we shall be forced to accumulate on the shoulders of\nfour professors a mass of sciences which, if the legislature adopts it,\nshould be distributed among ten. We shall be ready for a professor of\nlanguages in April next, for two others the following year, and a fourth\na year after. How happy should we be if we could have a Ticknor for our\nfirst. A critical classic is scarcely to be found in the United States.\nTo this professor, a fixed salary of five hundred dollars, with liberal\ntuition fees from the pupils, will probably give two thousand dollars a\nyear. We are now on the look-out for a professor, meaning to accept of\nnone but of the very first order.\n\nYou ask if I have seen Buchanan's, McAfee's, or Wilkinson's books?\nI have seen none of them, but have lately read, with great pleasure,\nReid & Eaton's life of Jackson, if life may be called what is merely a\nhistory of his campaign of 1814. Reid's part is well written. Eaton's\ncontinuation is better for its matter than style. The whole, however,\nis valuable.\n\nI have lately received a pamphlet of extreme interest from France. It\nis De Pradt's Historical Recital of the first return of Louis XVIII. to\nParis. It is precious for the minuti\u00e6 of the proceedings which it details,\nand for their authenticity, as from an eye-witness. Being but a pamphlet\nI enclose it for your perusal, assured, if you have not seen it, that it\nwill give you pleasure. I will ask its return, because I value it as a\nmorsel of genuine history, a thing so rare as to be always valuable. I\nhave received some information from an eye-witness also of what passed on\nthe occasion of the second return of Louis XVIII. The Emperor Alexander,\nit seems, was solidly opposed to this. In the consultation of the allied\nsovereigns and their representatives with the executive council at Paris,\nhe insisted that the Bourbons were too incapable and unworthy of being\nplaced at the head of the nation; declared he would support any other\nchoice they should freely make, and continued to urge most strenuously\nthat some other choice should be made. The debates ran high and warm,\nand broke off after midnight, every one retaining his own opinion. He\nlodged, as you know, at Talleyrand's. When they returned into council\nthe next day, his host had overcome his firmness. Louis XVIII. was\naccepted, and through the management of Talleyrand, accepted without any\ncapitulation, although the sovereigns would have consented that he should\nbe first required to subscribe and swear to the constitution prepared,\nbefore permission to enter the kingdom. It would seem as if Talleyrand\nhad been afraid to admit the smallest interval of time, lest a change of\nmind would bring back Bonaparte on them. But I observe that the friends\nof a limited monarchy there consider the popular representation as much\nimproved by the late alteration, and confident it will in the end produce\na fixed government in which an elective body, fairly representative of\nthe people, will be an efficient element.\n\nI congratulate Mrs. Adams and yourself on the return of your excellent\nand distinguished son, and our country still more on such a minister of\ntheir foreign affairs; and I renew to both the assurance of my high and\nfriendly respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO GEORGE FLOWER.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, September 12, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of August 12th was yesterday received at this\nplace, and I learn from it with pleasure that you have found a tract of\ncountry which will suit you for settlement. To us your first purchase\nwould have been more gratifying, by adding yourself and your friends\nto our society; but the overruling consideration, with us as with you,\nis your own advantage, and as it would doubtless be a great comfort to\nyou to have your ancient neighbors and friends settled around you. I\nsincerely wish that your proposition to \"purchase a tract of land in the\nIllinois on favorable terms, for introducing a colony of English farmers,\"\nmay encounter no difficulties from the established rules of our land\ndepartment. The general law prescribes an open sale, where all citizens\nmay compete on an equal footing for any lot of land which attracts their\nchoice. To dispense with this in any particular case, requires a special\nlaw of Congress, and to special legislation we are generally averse,\nlest a principle of favoritism should creep in and pervert that of equal\nrights. It has, however, been done on some occasions where a special\nnational advantage has been expected to overweigh that of adherence to\nthe general rule. The promised introduction of the culture of the vine\nprocured a special law in favor of the Swiss settlement on the Ohio.\nThat of the culture of oil, wine and other southern productions, did\nthe same lately for the French settlement on the Tombigbee. It remains\nto be tried whether that of an improved system of farming, interesting\nto so great a proportion of our citizens, may not also be thought worth\na dispensation with the general rule. This I suppose is the principal\nground on which your proposition will be questioned. For although as\nto other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling\ntogether in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they\npreserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of\ngovernment, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among\nthe natives for quicker amalgamation. Yet English emigrants are without\nthis inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles\nof government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here,\nare sufficiently disposed to adopt ours. What the issue, however, of\nyour proposition may probably be, I am less able to advise you than many\nothers; for during the last eight or ten years I have no knowledge of the\nadministration of the land office or the principles of its government.\nEven the persons on whom it will depend are all changed within that\ninterval, so as to leave me small means of being useful to you. Whatever\nthey may be, however, they shall be freely exercised for your advantage,\nand that, not on the selfish principle of increasing our own population at\nthe expense of other nations, for the additions to that from emigration\nare but as a drop in a bucket to those by natural procreation, but to\nconsecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel\nto seek happiness in other climes. This refuge once known will produce\nreaction on the happiness even of those who remain there, by warning\ntheir task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become\nheavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open\nwhere their subjects will be received as brothers, and secured against\nlike oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government. If\nadditional motives could be wanting with us to the maintenance of this\nright, they would be found in the animating consideration that a single\ngood government becomes thus a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome\nto the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their\noppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the\nright of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents\nitself for imitation, to rise on their rulers and do as we have done. You\nhave set to your own country a good example, by showing them a peaceable\nmode of reducing their rulers to the necessity of becoming more wise,\nmore moderate, and more honest, and I sincerely pray that the example\nmay work for the benefit of those who cannot follow it, as it will for\nyour own.\n\nWith Mr. Burckbeck, the associate of your late explanatory journeying,\nI have not the happiness of personal acquaintance; but I know him\nthrough his narrative of your journeyings together through France. The\nimpressions received from that, give me confidence that a participation\nwith yourself in assurances of the esteem and respect of a stranger\nwill not be unacceptable to him, and the less when given through you\nand associated with those to yourself.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, October 10, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I thank you for your kind congratulations on the return of\nmy little family from Europe. To receive them all in fine health and\ngood spirits, after so long an absence, was a greater blessing than at\nmy time of life when they went away, I had any right to hope, or reason\nto expect.\n\nIf the Secretary of State can give satisfaction to his fellow-citizens in\nhis new office, it will be a source of consolation to me while I live;\nalthough it is not probable that I shall long be a witness of his good\nsuccess, or ill success. I shall soon be obliged to say to him, and to\nyou, and to your country and mine, God bless you all! Fare-thee-well!\nIndeed, I need not wait a moment. I can say all that now, with as good\na will, and as clear a conscience, as at any time past, or future.\n\nI thank you, also, for the loan of De Pradt's narration of the intrigues,\nat the second restoration of the Bourbons. In this, as in many other\ninstances, is seen the influence of a single subtle mind, and a trifling\naccident, in deciding the fate of mankind for ages. De Pradt and\nTalleyrand were well associated.\n\nI have ventured to send the pamphlet to Washington with a charge to return\nit to you. The French have a King, a chamber of Peers, and a chamber of\nDeputies. _Voila! les ossimens_ of a constitution of a limited monarchy;\nand of a good one, provided the bones are united by good joints, and\nknitted together by strong tendons. But where does the sovereignty reside?\nAre the three branches sufficiently defined? A fair representation of the\nbody of the people by elections, sufficiently frequent, is essential to\na free government; but if the Commons cannot make themselves respected\nby the Peers, and the King, they can do no good, nor prevent any evil.\n\nCan any organization of government secure public and private liberty\nwithout a general or universal freedom, without license, or licentiousness\nof thinking, speaking, and writing. Have the French such freedom? Will\ntheir religion, or policy, allow it?\n\nWhen I think of liberty, and a free government, in an ancient, opulent,\npopulous, and commercial empire, I fear I shall always recollect a fable\nof Plato.\n\nLove is a son of the god of riches, and the goddess of poverty. He\ninherits from his father the intrepidity of his courage, the enthusiasm\nof his thoughts, his generosity, his prodigality, his confidence in\nhimself, the opinion of his own merit, the impatience to have always the\npreference; but he derives from his mother that indigence which makes\nhim always a beggar; that importunity with which he demands everything;\nthat timidity which sometimes hinders him from daring to ask anything;\nthat disposition which he has to servitude, and that dread of being\ndespised, which he can never overcome.\n\nSuch is Love according to Plato. Who calls him a demon? And such is\nliberty in France, and England, and all other great, rich, old, corrupted\ncommercial nations. The opposite qualities of the father and mother are\nperpetually tearing to pieces himself and his friends as well as his\nenemies.\n\nMr. Monroe has got the universal character among all our common people\nof \"A very smart man.\" And verily I am of the same mind. I know not\nanother who could have executed so great a plan so cleverly.\n\nI wish him the same happy success through his whole administration.\n\nI am, Sir, with respect and friendship, yours,\n\n J. A.\n\n\nTO THE HONORABLE JOHN Q. ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 1, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Yours of the 4th of October was not received here until the\n20th, having been sixteen days on its passage; since which unavoidable\navocations have made this the first moment it has been in my power to\nacknowledge its receipt. Of the character of M. de Pradt his political\nwritings furnish a tolerable estimate, but not so full as you have\nfavored me with. He is eloquent, and his pamphlet on colonies shows him\ningenious. I was gratified by his _Recit Historique_, because, pretending,\nas all men do, to some character, and he to one of some distinction, I\nsupposed he would not place before the world facts of glaring falsehood,\non which so many living and distinguished witnesses could convict him.\nWe, too, who are retired from the business of the world, are glad to\ncatch a glimpse of truth, here and there as we can, to guide our path\nthrough the boundless field of fable in which we are bewildered by public\nprints, and even by those calling themselves histories. A word of truth\nto us is like the drop of water supplicated from the tip of Lazarus'\nfinger. It is as an observation of latitude and longitude to the mariner\nlong enveloped in clouds, for correcting the ship's way.\n\nOn the subject of weights and measures, you will have, at its threshold,\nto encounter the question on which Solon and Lycurgus acted differently.\nShall we mould our citizens to the law, or the law to our citizens? And\nin solving this question their peculiar character is an element not to\nbe neglected. Of the two only things in nature which can furnish an\ninvariable standard, to wit, the dimensions of the globe itself, and\nthe time of its diurnal revolution on its axis, it is not perhaps of\nmuch importance which we adopt. That of the dimensions of the globe,\npreferred ultimately by the French, after first adopting the other, has\nbeen objected to from the difficulty, not to say impracticability, of\nthe verification of their admeasurement by other nations. Except the\nportion of a meridian which they adopted for their operation, there\nis not another on the globe which fulfils the requisite conditions,\nto wit, of so considerable length, that length too divided, not very\nunequally, by the 45th degree of latitude, and terminating at each end\nin the ocean. Now, this singular line lies wholly in France and Spain.\nBesides the immensity of expense and time which a verification would\nalways require, it cannot be undertaken by any nation without the joint\nconsent of these two powers. France having once performed the work,\nand refusing, as she may, to let any other nation re-examine it, she\nmakes herself the sole depository of the original standard for all\nnations; and all must send to her to obtain, and from time to time to\nprove their standards. To this, indeed, it may be answered, that there\ncan be no reason to doubt that the mensuration has been as accurately\nperformed as the intervention of numerous waters, and of high ridges of\ncraggy mountains, would admit; that all the calculations have been free\nof error, their coincidences faithfully reported, and that, whether in\npeace or war, to foes as well as friends, free access to the original\nwill at all times be admitted. In favor of the standard to be taken from\nthe time employed in a revolution of the earth on its axis, it may be\nurged that this revolution is a matter of fact present to all the world,\nthat its division into seconds of time is known and received by all the\nworld, that the length of a pendulum vibrating seconds in the different\ncircles of latitude is already known to all, and can at any time and in\nany place be ascertained by any nation or individual, and inferred by\nknown laws from their own to the medium latitude of 45\u00b0, whenever any\ndoubt may make this desirable; and that this is the particular standard\nwhich has at different times been contemplated and desired[1] by the\nphilosophers of every nation, and even by those of France, except at the\nparticular moment when this change was suddenly proposed and adopted,\nand under circumstances peculiar to the history of the moment. But the\ncogent reason which will decide the fate of whatever you report is, that\nEngland has lately adopted the reference of its measures to the pendulum.\nIt is the mercantile part of our community which will have most to do in\nthis innovation; it is that which having command of all the presses can\nmake the loudest outcry, and you know their identification with English\nregulations, practices, and prejudices. It is from this identification\nalone you can hope to be permitted to adopt even the English reference to\na pendulum. But the English proposition goes only to say what proportion\ntheir measures bear to the second pendulum of their own latitude, and\nnot at all to change their unit, or to reduce into any simple order\nthe chaos of their weights and measures. That would be innovation, and\ninnovation there is heresy and treason. Whether the Senate meant more\nthan this I do not know; and much doubt if more can be effected. However,\nin endeavors to improve our situation, we should never despair; and I\nsincerely wish you may be able to rally us to either standard, and to\ngive us an unit, the aliquot part of something invariable which may be\napplied simply and conveniently to our measures, weights, and coins,\nand most especially that the decimal divisions may pervade the whole.\nThe convenience of this in our monied system has been approved by all,\nand France has followed the example. The volume of tracts which you have\nnoted in the library of Congress, contains everything which I had then\nbeen able to collect on this subject. You will find some details which\nmay be of use in two thin 4to vols., Nos. 399, 400, of chapter xxiv.;\nthe latter being a collection of sheets selected from the \"_Encyclopedie\nMethodique_,\" on the weights, measures and coins of all nations, bound\nup together and alone; and the former a supplement by Beyerl\u00e9. Cooper's\nEmporium too, for May 1812, and August 1813, may offer something. The\nreports of the Committees of Parliament of 1758-9, I think you will find\nin Postlethwaite's Dictionary, which is also in the library, chapter\n20, No. 10. That of Mechain and Delambre I have not, nor do I know who\nhas it.\n\nI have lately seen a book which your office ought to possess, if it has\nit not already, entitled \"_Memoire sur la Louisiane_, par M. le Comte de\nVergennes, 8vo, Paris, chez Lepetit, Jeune, 1802.\" It contains more in\ndetail the proofs of the extent of Louisiana as far as the Rio Grande\nthan I have ever before seen, and its author gives it authenticity.\nIt has been executed with great industry and research into the French\nrecords. This reminds me of a MS. which Governor Claiborne found in a\nprivate family in Louisiana, being a journal kept (I forget by whom,\nbut) by a confidential officer of the government, proving exactly by\nwhat connivance between the agents of the _compagnie d'occident_ and\nthe Spaniards these last smuggled settlements into Louisiana as far as\nAssinais, Adais, &c., for the purpose of covering the contraband trade\nof the company. Claiborne being afraid to trust the original by mail\nwithout keeping a copy, sent it on. It arrived safe, and was deposited\nin the office of State. He then sent me the copy on the destruction of\nthe office at Washington by the British, apprehending the original might\nbe involved in that destruction. I sent the copy to Colonel Monroe,\nthen Secretary of State, with a request to return it if the original\nwas safe, and to keep it if not. I have heard no more of it; but will\nnow request of you to have search made for the original, and if safe, to\nreturn me the copy. I propose to deposit it with the historical committee\nof the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, for safe keeping. I have\nno use nor wish for such a thing myself, but think it will be safer in\ntwo deposits than one. My recommendation to Colonel Monroe, was to have\nit printed. I have barely left myself room to express my satisfaction\nat your call to the important office you hold, and to tender you the\nassurance of my great esteem and respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [1] If conforming to this desire of other nations, we adopt\n the second pendulum, 3/10 of that for our foot will be the\n same as \u2155 or, 2/10 of the second rod, because that rod is to\n the pendulum as 3 to 2. This would make our foot \u00bc inch less\n than the present one.\n\n\nTO MR. DUPONCEAU.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 7, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--A part of the information of which the expedition of Lewis\nand Clarke was the object, has been communicated to the world by\nthe publication of their journal; but much and valuable matter yet\nremains uncommunicated. The correction of the longitudes of their map\nis essential to its value; to which purpose their observations of the\nlunar distances are to be calculated and applied. The new subjects they\ndiscovered in the vegetable, animal, and mineral departments, are to\nbe digested and made known. The numerous vocabularies they obtained of\nthe Indian languages are to be collated and published. Although the\nwhole expense of the expedition was furnished by the public, and the\ninformation to be derived from it was theirs also, yet on the return\nof Messrs. Lewis and Clarke, the government thought it just to leave\nto them any pecuniary benefit which might result from a publication of\nthe papers, and supposed, indeed, that this would secure the best form\nof publication. But the property in these papers still remained in the\ngovernment for the benefit of their constituents. With the measures\ntaken by Governor Lewis for their publication, I was never acquainted.\nAfter his death, Governor Clarke put them, in the first instance, into\nthe hands of the late Doctor Barton, from whom some of them passed to\nMr. Biddle, and some again, I believe, from him to Mr. Allen. While\nthe MS. books of journals were in the hands of Dr. Barton, I wrote to\nhim, on behalf of Governor Lewis' family, requesting earnestly, that,\nas soon as these should be published, the originals might be returned,\nas the family wished to have them preserved. He promised in his answer\nthat it should be faithfully done. After his death, I obtained, through\nthe kind agency of Mr. Correa, from Mrs. Barton, three of these books,\nof which I knew there had been ten or twelve, having myself read them.\nThese were all she could find. The rest, therefore, I presume, are in\nthe hands of the other gentlemen. After the agency I had had in effecting\nthis expedition, I thought myself authorized, and, indeed, that it would\nbe expected of me, that I should follow up the subject, and endeavor to\nobtain its fruits for the public. I wrote to General Clarke, therefore,\nfor authority to receive the original papers. He gave it in the letters\nto Mr. Biddle and to myself, which I now enclose. As the custody of\nthese papers belonged properly to the War-Office, and that was vacant\nat the time, I have waited several months for its being filled. But the\noffice still remaining vacant, and my distance rendering any effectual\nmeasures, by myself, impracticable, I ask the agency of your committee,\nwithin whose province I propose to place the matter, by making it the\ndepository of the papers generally. I therefore now forward the three\nvolumes of MS. journals in my possession, and authorize them, under\nGeneral Clarke's letters, to inquire for and to receive the rest. So also\nthe astronomical and geographical papers, those relating to zoological,\nbotanical, and mineral subjects, with the Indian vocabularies, and\nstatistical tables relative to the Indians. Of the astronomical and\ngeographical papers, if the committee will be so good as to give me a\nstatement, I will, as soon as a Secretary at War is appointed, propose\nto him to have made, at the public expense, the requisite calculations,\nto have the map corrected in its longitudes and latitudes, engraved\nand published on a proper scale; and I will ask from General Clarke the\none he offers, with his corrections. With respect to the zoological and\nmineralogical papers and subjects, it would perhaps be agreeable to the\nPhilosophical Society, to have a digest of them made, and published in\ntheir transactions or otherwise. And if it should be within the views\nof the historical committee to have the Indian vocabularies digested\nand published, I would add to them the remains of my collection. I had\nthrough the course of my life availed myself of every opportunity of\nprocuring vocabularies of the languages of every tribe which either myself\nor my friends could have access to. They amounted to about forty, more\nor less perfect. But in their passage from Washington to this place, the\ntrunk in which they were was stolen and plundered, and some fragments\nonly of the vocabularies were recovered. Still, however, they were such\nas would be worth incorporation with a larger work, and shall be at the\nservice of the historical committee, if they can make any use of them.\nPermit me to request the return of General Clarke's letter, and to add\nassurances of my respect and esteem.\n\nP. S. With the volumes of MS. journal, Mrs. Barton delivered one by\nmistake I suppose, which seems to have been the journal of some botanist.\nI presume it was the property of Dr. Barton, and therefore forward it\nto you to be returned to Mrs. Barton.\n\n\nTO MR. CORREA.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, November 25, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am highly gratified by the interest you take in our Central\nCollege, and the more so as it may possibly become an inducement to\npass more of your time with us. It is even said you had thought of\nengaging a house in its neighborhood. But why another house? Is not one\nenough? and especially one whose inhabitants are made so happy by your\nbecoming their inmate? When you shall have a wife and family wishing\nto be to themselves, then the question of another house may be taken\n_ad referendum_. I wish Dr. Cooper could have the same partialities. He\nseems to have misunderstood my last letter; in the former I had spoken\nof opening our Physical School in the spring of '19, but learning that\nthat delay might render his engagement uncertain, the visitors determined\nto force their preparations so as to receive him by midsummer next, and\nso my letter stated. In one I now write, I recall his attention to that\ncircumstance. But his decision will no doubt be governed by the result\nof the proposition, to permit the medical students of Philadelphia to\nattend him. I can never regret any circumstance which may add to his\nwell-being, for I most sincerely wish him well. That himself and Mrs.\nCooper will be happier in the society of Philadelphia, cannot be doubted.\nIt would be flattering enough to us to be his second choice. I find from\nhis information that we are not to expect to obtain in this country\neither a classical or mathematical professor of the first order: and\nas our institution cannot be raised above the common herd of academies,\ncolleges, &c., already scattered over our country, but by super-eminent\nprofessors, we have determined to accept of no mediocrity, and to seek\nin Europe for what is eminent. We shall go to Edinburgh in preference,\nbecause of the advantage to students of receiving communications in\ntheir native tongue, and because peculiar and personal circumstances\nwill enable us to interest Dugald Stewart and Professor Leslie, of\nthat College, in procuring us subjects of real worth and eminence.\nI put off writing to them for a classical and mathematical professor\nonly until I see what our legislature, which meets on Monday next, is\ndisposed to do, either on the question singly of adopting our college\nfor their university, or on that of entering at once on a general system\nof instruction, for which they have, for some time been preparing. For\nthis last purpose I have sketched, and put into the hands of a member\na bill, delineating a practicable plan, entirely within the means they\nalready have on hand, destined to this object. My bill proposes, 1.\nElementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder\nwithin three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place\nevery father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of\nhis son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation, with the\noffer of the lands, buildings, and funds of the Central College, if\nthey will accept that place for their establishment. In the 1st will\nbe taught reading, writing, common arithmetic, and general notions of\ngeography. In the 2d, ancient and modern languages, geography fully, a\nhigher degree of numerical arithmetic, mensuration, and the elementary\nprinciples of navigation. In the 3d, all the useful sciences in their\nhighest degree. To all of which is added a selection from the elementary\nschools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too\npoor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense\nthrough the colleges and university. The object is to bring into action\nthat mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country, for\nwant of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of\nmind, which, in proportion to our population, shall be the double or\ntreble of what it is in most countries. The expense of the elementary\nschools for every county, is proposed to be levied on the wealth of the\ncounty, and all children rich and poor to be educated at these three\nyears gratis. The expense of the colleges and university, admitting two\nprofessors to each of the former, and ten to the latter, can be completely\nand permanently established with a sum of five hundred thousand dollars,\nin addition to the present funds of our Central College. Our literary\nfund has already on hand, and appropriated to these purposes, a sum of\nseven hundred thousand dollars, and that increasing yearly. This is\nin fact and substance the plan I proposed in a bill forty years ago,\nbut accommodated to the circumstances of this, instead of that day. I\nderive my present hopes that it may now be adopted, from the fact that\nthe House of Representatives, at their last session, passed a bill, less\npracticable and boundlessly expensive, and therefore alone rejected by\nthe Senate, and printed for public consideration and amendment. Mine,\nafter all, may be an Utopian dream, but being innocent, I have thought\nI might indulge in it till I go to the land of dreams, and sleep there\nwith the dreamers of all past and future times.\n\nI have taken measures to obtain the crested turkey, and will endeavor\nto perpetuate that beautiful and singular characteristic, and shall be\nnot less earnest in endeavors to raise the Moronnier. God bless you,\nand preserve you long in life and health, until wearied with delighting\nyour kindred spirits here, you may wish to encounter the great problem,\nuntried by the living, unreported by the dead.\n\n\nTO MR. DUPONCEAU.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 30, 1817.\n\nDEAR SIR,--An absence of six weeks has occasioned your letters of the\n5th and 11th inst., to lie thus long unacknowledged. After I had sent\noff the two other Westover MSS. I received a third of the same journal.\nOn perusing it I am not sensible by memory, of anything not contained in\nthe former, except eight pages of a preliminary account of the abridgment\nof our limits by successive charters to other colonies. I suppose this\nto be a copy of the largest of the other two, entered fair in a folio\nvolume, with other documents relating to the government of Virginia. It\nis bound in vellum, and, by the arms pasted in it, seems to have been\nintended for the shelves of the author's library. As this journal is\ncomplete it might enable us to supply the hiatuses of the other copies.\n\nI now send you the remains of my Indian vocabularies, some of which are\nperfect. I send with them the fragments of my digest of them, which were\ngathered up on the banks of the river where they had been strewed by the\nplunderers of the trunk in which they were. Those will merely show the\narrangement I had given the vocabularies, according to their affinities\nand degrees of resemblance or dissimilitude.\n\nIf you can recover Capt. Lewis' collection, they will make an important\naddition, for there was no part of his instructions which he executed more\nfully or carefully, never meeting with a single Indian of a new tribe,\nwithout making his vocabulary the first object. What Professor Adelung\nmentions of the Empress Catharine's having procured many vocabularies of\nour Indians, is correct. She applied to M. de La Fayette, who, through\nthe aid of General Washington, obtained several; but I never learnt of\nwhat particular tribes. The great works of Pallas being rare, I will\nmention that there are two editions of it, the one in two volumes, the\nother in four volumes 4to, in the library I ceded to Congress, which\nmaybe consulted. But the Professor's account of the supposed Mexican MS.\nis quite erroneous, nor can I conceive through whom he can have received\nhis information. It has probably been founded on an imperfect knowledge\nof the following fact: Soon after the acquisition of Louisiana, Governor\nClaiborne found, in a private family there, a MS. journal kept, (I forget\nby whom,) but by a confidential officer of the French government, proving\nexactly by what connivance between the agents of the compagnie d'occident,\nand the Spaniards, these last smuggled settlements into Louisiana, as\nfar as Assinais, Adais, &c., for the purpose of covering the contraband\ntrade of the company. Claiborne, being afraid to trust the original by\nmail, without keeping a copy, sent it on after being copied. It arrived\nsafe, and was deposited by me in the office of State. He then sent me\nthe copy, on the destruction of the office at Washington by the British;\napprehending the original might be involved in that destruction, I sent\nthe copy to Colonel Monroe, then Secretary of State, with a request to\nreturn it, if the original was safe, and to keep it, if not. I have\nheard no more of it. My intention was, and is, if it is returned to\nme, to deposit it with your committee for safe keeping or publication.\nWhile on the subject of Louisiana, I have thought I had better commit\nto you also an historical memoir of my own respecting the important\nquestion of its limits. When we first made the purchase we knew little\nof its extent, having never before been interested to inquire into it.\nPossessing, then, in my library, everything respecting America which I\nhad been able to collect by unremitting researches, during my residence\nin Europe, particularly and generally through my life, I availed myself\nof the leisure of my succeeding autumnal recess from Washington, to bring\ntogether everything which my collection furnished on the subject of its\nboundary. The result was the memoir I now send you, copies of which were\nfurnished to our ministers at Paris and Madrid, for their information as\nto the extent of territory claimed under our purchase. The New Orleans\nMS. afterwards discovered, furnished some valuable supplementary proofs\nof title.\n\nI defer writing to the Secretary at War respecting the observations of\nlongitude and latitude by Capt. Lewis, until I learn from you whether\nthey are recovered, and whether they are so complete as to be susceptible\nof satisfactory calculation. I salute you with great respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO MR. WIRT.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 5, 1818.\n\nI have first to thank you, dear Sir, for the copy of your late work\nwhich you have been so kind as to send me, and then to render you double\ncongratulations, first, on the general applause it has so justly received,\nand next on the public testimony of esteem for its author, manifested\nby your late call to the executive councils of the nation. All this I\ndo heartily, and then proceed to a case of business on which you will\nhave to advise the government on the threshold of your office. You have\nseen the death of General Kosciusko announced in the papers in such a\nway as not to be doubted. He had in the funds of the United States a\nvery considerable sum of money, on the interest of which he depended for\nsubsistence. On his leaving the United States, in 1798, he placed it under\nmy direction by a power of attorney, which I executed entirely through\nMr. Barnes, who regularly remitted his interest. But he left also in my\nhands an autograph will, disposing of his funds in a particular course\nof charity, and making me his executor. The question the government\nwill ask of you, and which I therefore ask, is in what court must this\nwill be proved, and my qualification as executor be received, to justify\nthe United States in placing these funds under the trust? This is to be\nexecuted wholly in this State, and will occupy so long a course of time\nbeyond what I can expect to live, that I think to propose to place it\nunder the Court of Chancery. The place of probate generally follows the\nresidence of the testator. That was in a foreign country in the present\ncase. Sometimes the _bona notabilia_. The evidences or representations\nof these (the certificates) are in my hands. The things represented (the\nmoney) in those of the United States. But where are the United States?\nEverywhere, I suppose, where they have government or property liable to\nthe demand on payment. That is to say, in every State of the Union, in\nthis, for example, as well as any other, strengthened by the circumstances\nof the deposit of the will, the residence of the executor, and the place\nwhere the trust is to be executed. In no instance, I believe, does the\nmere habitation of the debtor draw to it the place of probate, and if it\ndid, the United States are omnipresent by their functionaries, as well as\nproperty in every State of the Union. I am led by these considerations\nto suppose our district or general court competent to the object; but\nyou know best, and by your advice, sanctioned by the Secretary of the\nTreasury, I shall act. I write to the Secretary on this subject. If our\ndistrict court will do, I can attend it personally; if the general court\nonly be competent, I am in hopes it will find means of dispensing with\nmy personal attendance. I salute you with affectionate esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO DR. BENJAMIN WATERHOUSE.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 3, 1818.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have just received your favor of February 20th, in which you\nobserve that Mr. Wirt, on page 47 of his Life of Patrick Henry, quotes\nme as saying that \"Mr. Henry certainly gave the first impulse to the\nball of revolution.\" I well recollect to have used some such expression\nin a letter to him, and am tolerably certain that our own State being\nthe subject under contemplation, I must have used it with respect to\nthat only. Whether he has given it a more general aspect I cannot say,\nas the passage is not in the page you quote, nor, after thumbing over\nmuch of the book, have I been able to find it.[2] In page 417 there is\nsomething like it, but not the exact expression, and even there it may\nbe doubted whether Mr. Wirt had his eye on Virginia alone, or on all\nthe colonies. But the question, who commenced the revolution? is as\ndifficult as that of the first inventors of a thousand good things. For\nexample, who first discovered the principle of gravity? Not Newton; for\nGalileo, who died the year that Newton was born, had measured its force\nin the descent of gravid bodies. Who invented the Lavoiserian chemistry?\nThe English say Dr. Black, by the preparatory discovery of latent heat.\nWho invented the steamboat? Was it Gerbert, the Marquis of Worcester,\nNewcomen, Savary, Papin, Fitch, Fulton? The fact is, that one new idea\nleads to another, that to a third, and so on through a course of time\nuntil some one, with whom no one of these ideas was original, combines\nall together, and produces what is justly called a new invention. I\nsuppose it would be as difficult to trace our revolution to its first\nembryo. We do not know how long it was hatching in the British cabinet\nbefore they ventured to make the first of the experiments which were to\ndevelop it in the end and to produce complete parliamentary supremacy.\nThose you mention in Massachusetts as preceding the stamp act, might\nbe the first visible symptoms of that design. The proposition of that\nact in 1764, was the first here. Your opposition, therefore, preceded\nours, as occasion was sooner given there than here, and the truth, I\nsuppose, is, that the opposition in every colony began whenever the\nencroachment was presented to it. This question of priority is as the\ninquiry would be who first, of the three hundred Spartans, offered his\nname to Leonidas? I shall be happy to see justice done to the merits of\nall, by the unexceptionable umpirage of date and facts, and especially\nfrom the pen which is proposed to be employed in it.\n\nI rejoice, indeed, to learn from you that Mr. Adams retains the strength\nof his memory, his faculties, his cheerfulness, and even his epistolary\nindustry. This last is gone from me. The aversion has been growing on\nme for a considerable time, and now, near the close of seventy-five,\nis become almost insuperable. I am much debilitated in body, and my\nmemory sensibly on the wane. Still, however, I enjoy good health and\nspirits, and am as industrious a reader as when a student at college.\nNot of newspapers. These I have discarded. I relinquish, as I ought to\ndo, all intermeddling with public affairs, committing myself cheerfully\nto the watch and care of those for whom, in my turn, I have watched and\ncared. When I contemplate the immense advances in science and discoveries\nin the arts which have been made within the period of my life, I look\nforward with confidence to equal advances by the present generation,\nand have no doubt they will consequently be as much wiser than we have\nbeen as we than our fathers were, and they than the burners of witches.\nEven the metaphysical contest, which you so pleasantly described to me\nin a former letter, will probably end in improvement, by clearing the\nmind of Platonic mysticism and unintelligible jargon. Although age is\ntaking from me the power of communicating by letter with my friends\nas industriously as heretofore, I shall still claim with them the same\nplace they will ever hold in my affections, and on this ground I, with\nsincerity and pleasure, assure you of my great esteem and respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [2] It was found page 41.\n\n\nTO N. BURWELL, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 14, 1818.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your letter of February 17th found me suffering under an attack\nof rheumatism, which has but now left me at sufficient ease to attend\nto the letters I have received. A plan of female education has never\nbeen a subject of systematic contemplation with me. It has occupied my\nattention so far only as the education of my own daughters occasionally\nrequired. Considering that they would be placed in a country situation,\nwhere little aid could be obtained from abroad, I thought it essential\nto give them a solid education, which might enable them, when become\nmothers, to educate their own daughters, and even to direct the course\nfor sons, should their fathers be lost, or incapable, or inattentive.\nMy surviving daughter accordingly, the mother of many daughters as well\nas sons, has made their education the object of her life, and being a\nbetter judge of the practical part than myself, it is with her aid and\nthat of one of her elev\u00e8s, that I shall subjoin a catalogue of the books\nfor such a course of reading as we have practiced.\n\nA great obstacle to good education is the inordinate passion prevalent for\nnovels, and the time lost in that reading which should be instructively\nemployed. When this poison infects the mind, it destroys its tone\nand revolts it against wholesome reading. Reason and fact, plain and\nunadorned, are rejected. Nothing can engage attention unless dressed in\nall the figments of fancy, and nothing so bedecked comes amiss. The result\nis a bloated imagination, sickly judgment, and disgust towards all the\nreal businesses of life. This mass of trash, however, is not without some\ndistinction; some few modelling their narratives, although fictitious,\non the incidents of real life, have been able to make them interesting\nand useful vehicles of a sound morality. Such, I think, are Marmontel's\nnew moral tales, but not his old ones, which are really immoral. Such are\nthe writings of Miss Edgeworth, and some of those of Madame Genlis. For\na like reason, too, much poetry should not be indulged. Some is useful\nfor forming style and taste. Pope, Dryden, Thompson, Shakspeare, and of\nthe French, Moli\u00e8re, Racine, the Corneilles, may be read with pleasure\nand improvement.\n\nThe French language, become that of the general intercourse of nations,\nand from their extraordinary advances, now the depository of all\nscience, is an indispensable part of education for both sexes. In the\nsubjoined catalogue, therefore, I have placed the books of both languages\nindifferently, according as the one or the other offers what is best.\n\nThe ornaments too, and the amusements of life, are entitled to their\nportion of attention. These, for a female, are dancing, drawing, and\nmusic. The first is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive\nfor young people. Every affectionate parent would be pleased to\nsee his daughter qualified to participate with her companions, and\nwithout awkwardness at least, in the circles of festivity, of which\nshe occasionally becomes a part. It is a necessary accomplishment,\ntherefore, although of short use; for the French rule is wise, that no\nlady dances after marriage. This is founded in solid physical reasons,\ngestation and nursing leaving little time to a married lady when this\nexercise can be either safe or innocent. Drawing is thought less of in\nthis country than in Europe. It is an innocent and engaging amusement,\noften useful, and a qualification not to be neglected in one who is to\nbecome a mother and an instructor. Music is invaluable where a person has\nan ear. Where they have not, it should not be attempted. It furnishes\na delightful recreation for the hours of respite from the cares of the\nday, and lasts us through life. The taste of this country, too, calls\nfor this accomplishment more strongly than for either of the others.\n\nI need say nothing of household economy, in which the mothers of our\ncountry are generally skilled, and generally careful to instruct their\ndaughters. We all know its value, and that diligence and dexterity in\nall its processes are inestimable treasures. The order and economy of\na house are as honorable to the mistress as those of the farm to the\nmaster, and if either be neglected, ruin follows, and children destitute\nof the means of living.\n\nThis, Sir, is offered as a summary sketch on a subject on which I have\nnot thought much. It probably contains nothing but what has already\noccurred to yourself, and claims your acceptance on no other ground than\nas a testimony of my respect for your wishes, and of my great esteem\nand respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 17, 1818.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I was so unfortunate as not to receive from Mr. Holly's own\nhand your favor of January the 28th, being then at my other home. He\ndined only with my family, and left them with an impression which has\nfilled me with regret that I did not partake of the pleasure his visit\ngave them. I am glad he is gone to Kentucky. Rational Christianity will\nthrive more rapidly there than here. They are freer from prejudices\nthan we are, and bolder in grasping at truth. The time is not distant,\nthough neither you nor I shall see it, when we shall be but a secondary\npeople to them. Our greediness for wealth, and fantastical expense, have\ndegraded, and will degrade, the minds of our maritime citizens. These\nare the peculiar vices of commerce.\n\nI had been long without hearing _from_ you, but I had heard _of_ you\nthrough a letter from Doctor Waterhouse. He wrote to reclaim against\nan expression of Mr. Wirt's, as to the commencement of motion in the\nrevolutionary ball. The lawyers say that words are always to be expounded\n_secundum subjectam materiem_, which, in Mr. Wirt's case, was Virginia.\nIt would, moreover, be as difficult to say at what moment the Revolution\nbegan, and what incident set it in motion, as to fix the moment that the\nembryo becomes an animal, or the act which gives him a beginning. But\nthe most agreeable part of his letter was that which informed me of your\nhealth, your activity, and strength of memory; and the most wonderful,\nthat which assured me that you retained your industry and promptness in\nepistolary correspondence. Here you have entire advantage over me. My\nrepugnance to the writing table becomes daily and hourly more deadly\nand insurmountable. In place of this has come on a canine appetite\nfor reading. And I indulge it, because I see in it a relief against\nthe _t\u00e6dium senectutis_; a lamp to lighten my path through the dreary\nwilderness of time before me, whose bourne I see not. Losing daily all\ninterest in the things around us, something else is necessary to fill\nthe void. With me it is reading, which occupies the mind without the\nlabor of producing ideas from my own stock.\n\nI enter into all your doubts as to the event of the revolution of South\nAmerica. They will succeed against Spain. But the dangerous enemy is\nwithin their own breasts. Ignorance and superstition will chain their\nminds and bodies under religious and military despotism. I do believe\nit would be better for them to obtain freedom by degrees only; because\nthat would by degrees bring on light and information, and qualify them\nto take charge of themselves understandingly; with more certainty,\nif in the meantime, under so much control as may keep them at peace\nwith one another. Surely, it is our duty to wish them independence and\nself-government, because they wish it themselves, and they have the\nright, and we none, to choose for themselves; and I wish, moreover, that\nour ideas may be erroneous, and theirs prove well founded. But these\nare speculations, my friend, which we may as well deliver over to those\nwho are to see their development. We shall only be lookers on, from the\nclouds above, as now we look down on the labors, the hurry and bustle of\nthe ants and bees. Perhaps in that super-mundane region, we may be amused\nwith seeing the fallacy of our own guesses, and even the nothingness of\nthose labors which have filled and agitated our own time here.\n\n_En attendant_, with sincere affections to Mrs. Adams and yourself, I\nsalute you both cordially.\n\n\nTO M. JULLIEN.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 23, 1818.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of March 30th, 1817, came to my hands on the 1st of\nMarch, 1818. While the statement it contained of the many instances\nof your attention in sending to me your different writings was truly\nflattering, it was equally mortifying to perceive that two only of\nthe eight it enumerates, had ever come to my hands; and that both of\nmy acknowledgments of these had miscarried also. Your first favor of\nNovember 5th, 1809, was received by me on the 6th of May, 1810, and was\nanswered on the 15th of July of the same year, with an acknowledgment\nof the receipt of your \"_Essai general d'education physique morale, et\nintellectuelle,_\" and of the high sense I entertained of its utility.\nI do not recollect through what channel I sent this answer, but have\nlittle doubt that it was through the office of our Secretary of State,\nand our minister then at the court of France.\n\nIn a letter from Mr. E. I. Dupont of August 11, 1817, I received the\nfavor of your \"_Esquisse d'un ouvrage sur l'education compar\u00e9e,_\" which\nhe said had been received by his father a few days before his death;\nand on the 9th of September, 1817, I answered his letter, in which was\nthe following paragraph: \"I duly received the pamphlet of M. Jullien on\nEducation, to whom I had been indebted some years before for a valuable\nwork on the same subject. Of this I expressed to him my high estimation in\na letter of thanks, which I trust he received. The present pamphlet is an\nadditional proof of his useful assiduities on this interesting subject,\nwhich, if the condition of man is to be progressively ameliorated, as\nwe fondly hope and believe, is to be the chief instrument in effecting\nit.\" I hoped that Mr. E. I. Dupont, in acknowledging to you the receipt\nof your letter to his father, would be the channel of conveying to you\nmy thanks, as he was to me of the work for which they were rendered. Be\nassured, Sir, that not another scrip, either written or printed, ever came\nto me from you; and that I was incapable of omitting the acknowledgments\nthey called for, and of the neglect which you have had so much reason\nto impute to me. I know well the uncertainty of transmissions across the\nAtlantic, but never before experienced such a train of them as has taken\nplace in your favors and my acknowledgments of them. You will perceive\nthat the letter I am now answering was eleven months on its passage to\nme.\n\nThe distance between the scenes of action of General Kosciusko and myself,\nduring our revolutionary war,--his in the military, mine in the civil\ndepartment,--was such, that I could give no particulars of the part he\nacted in that war. But immediately on the receipt of your letter, I wrote\nto General Armstrong, who had been his companion in arms, and an aid to\nGeneral Gates, with whom General Kosciusko mostly served, and requested\nhim to give me all the details within his knowledge; informing him for\nwhom, and for what purpose they were asked. I received, two days ago\nonly, the paper of which the enclosed is a copy, and copied by myself,\nbecause the original is in such a handwriting as I am confident no\nforeigner could ever decypher. However heavily pressed by the hand of\nage, and unequal to the duties of punctual correspondence, of which my\nfriends generally would have a right to complain, if the cause depended\non myself, I am happy to find that in that with yourself there has\nbeen no ground of reproach. Least of all things could I have omitted\nany researches within my power which might do justice to the memory of\nGeneral Kosciusko, the brave auxiliary of my country in its struggle for\nliberty, and, from the year 1797, when our particular acquaintance began,\nmy most intimate and much beloved friend. On his last departure from the\nUnited States in 1798, he left in my hands an instrument appropriating\nafter his death all the property he had in our public funds, the price\nof his military services here, to the education and emancipation of as\nmany of the children of bondage in this country as it should be adequate\nto. I am now too old to undertake a business _de si longue haleine_;\nbut I am taking measures to place it in such hands as will ensure a\nfaithful discharge of the philanthropic intentions of the donor. I learn\nwith pleasure your continued efforts for the instruction of the future\ngenerations of men, and, believing it the only means of effectuating\ntheir rights, I wish them all possible success, and to yourself the\neternal gratitude of those who will feel their benefits, and beg leave\nto add the assurance of my high esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 13, 1818.\n\nThe public papers, my dear friend, announce the fatal event of which your\nletter of October the 20th had given me ominous foreboding. Tried myself\nin the school of affliction, by the loss of every form of connection\nwhich can rive the human heart, I know well, and feel what you have lost,\nwhat you have suffered, are suffering, and have yet to endure. The same\ntrials have taught me that for ills so immeasurable, time and silence are\nthe only medicine. I will not, therefore, by useless condolences, open\nafresh the sluices of your grief, nor, although mingling sincerely my\ntears with yours, will I say a word more where words are vain, but that\nit is of some comfort to us both, that the term is not very distant, at\nwhich we are to deposit in the same cerement, our sorrows and suffering\nbodies, and to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends\nwe have loved and lost, and whom we shall still love and never lose\nagain. God bless you and support you under your heavy affliction.\n\n\nTO ROBERT WALSH.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 4, 1818.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Yours of November the 8th has been some time received; but\nit is in my power to give little satisfaction as to its inquiries. Dr.\nFranklin had many political enemies, as every character must, which,\nwith decision enough to have opinions, has energy and talent to give\nthem effect on the feelings of the adversary opinion. These enmities\nwere chiefly in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. In the former, they were\nmerely of the proprietary party. In the latter, they did not commence\ntill the Revolution, and then sprung chiefly from personal animosities,\nwhich spreading by little and little, became at length of some extent.\nDr. Lee was his principal calumniator, a man of much malignity, who,\nbesides enlisting his whole family in the same hostility, was enabled,\nas the agent of Massachusetts with the British government, to infuse it\ninto that State with considerable effect. Mr. Izard, the Doctor's enemy\nalso, but from a pecuniary transaction, never countenanced these charges\nagainst him. Mr. Jay, Silas Deane, Mr. Laurens, his colleagues also, ever\nmaintained towards him unlimited confidence and respect. That he would\nhave waived the formal recognition of our independence, I never heard on\nany authority worthy notice. As to the fisheries, England was urgent to\nretain them exclusively, France neutral, and I believe, that had they been\nultimately made a _sine qu\u00e2 non_, our commissioners (Mr. Adams excepted)\nwould have relinquished them, rather than have broken off the treaty. To\nMr. Adams' perseverance alone, on that point, I have always understood\nwe were indebted for their reservation. As to the charge of subservience\nto France, besides the evidence of his friendly colleagues before named,\ntwo years of my own service with him at Paris, daily visits, and the\nmost friendly and confidential conversation, convince me it had not a\nshadow of foundation. He possessed the confidence of that government in\nthe highest degree, insomuch, that it may truly be said, that they were\nmore under his influence, than he under theirs. The fact is, that his\ntemper was so amiable and conciliatory, his conduct so rational, never\nurging impossibilities, or even things unreasonably inconvenient to them,\nin short, so moderate and attentive to their difficulties, as well as\nour own, that what his enemies called subserviency, I saw was only that\nreasonable disposition, which, sensible that advantages are not all to\nbe on one side, yielding what is just and liberal, is the more certain\nof obtaining liberality and justice. Mutual confidence produces, of\ncourse, mutual influence, and this was all which subsisted between Dr.\nFranklin and the government of France.\n\nI state a few anecdotes of Dr. Franklin, within my own knowledge, too\nmuch in detail for the scale of Delaplaine's work, but which may find _a\ncadre_ in some of the more particular views you contemplate. My health is\nin a great measure restored, and our family join with me in affectionate\nrecollections and assurances of respect.\n\n\nTO M. DE NEUVILLE.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 13, 1818.\n\nI thank your Excellency for the notice with which your letters favor me,\nof the liberation of France from the occupation of the allied powers. To\nno one, not a native, will it give more pleasure. In the desolation of\nEurope, to gratify the atrocious caprices of Bonaparte, France sinned\nmuch; but she has suffered more than retaliation. Once relieved from\nthe incubus of her late oppression, she will rise like a giant from\nher slumbers. Her soil and climate, her arts and eminent sciences, her\ncentral position and free constitution, will soon make her greater than\nshe ever was. And I am a false prophet, if she does not at some future\nday, remind of her sufferings those who have inflicted them the most\neagerly. I hope, however, she will be quiet for the present, and risk\nno new troubles. Her constitution, as now amended, gives as much of\nself-government as perhaps she can yet bear, and will give more, when\nthe habits of order shall have prepared her to receive more. Besides the\ngratitude which every American owes her, as our sole ally during the\nwar of independence, I am additionally affectioned by the friendships\nI contracted there, by the good dispositions I witnessed, and by the\ncourtesies I received.\n\nI rejoice, as a moralist, at the prospect of a reduction of the duties\non wine, by our national legislature. It is an error to view a tax on\nthat liquor as merely a tax on the rich. It is a prohibition of its use\nto the middling class of our citizens, and a condemnation of them to\nthe poison of whiskey, which is desolating their houses. No nation is\ndrunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of wine\nsubstitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage. It is, in truth, the\nonly antidote to the bane of whiskey. Fix but the duty at the rate of\nother merchandise, and we can drink wine here as cheap as we do grog; and\nwho will not prefer it? Its extended use will carry health and comfort\nto a much enlarged circle. Every one in easy circumstances (as the bulk\nof our citizens are) will prefer it to the poison to which they are now\ndriven by their government. And the treasury itself will find that a\npenny a piece from a dozen, is more than a groat from a single one. This\nreformation, however, will require time. Our merchants know nothing of\nthe infinite variety of cheap and good wines to be had in Europe; and\nparticularly in France, in Italy, and the Gr\u00e6cian islands; as they know\nlittle also, of the variety of excellent manufactures and comforts to\nbe had anywhere out of England. Nor will these things be known, nor of\ncourse called for here, until the native merchants of those countries,\nto whom they are known, shall bring them forward, exhibit and vend them\nat the moderate profits they can afford. This alone will procure them\nfamiliarity with us, and the preference they merit in competition with\ncorresponding articles now in use.\n\nOur family renew with pleasure their recollections of your kind visit\nto Monticello, and join me in tendering sincere assurances of the\ngratification it afforded us, and of our great esteem and respectful\nconsideration.\n\n\nTO NATHANIEL MACON, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 12, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The problem you had wished to propose to me was one which\nI could not have solved; for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no\nnewspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for\nthey contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. I feel a\nmuch greater interest in knowing what has passed two or three thousand\nyears ago, than in what is now passing. I read nothing, therefore, but\nof the heroes of Troy, of the wars of Laced\u00e6mon and Athens, of Pompey and\nC\u00e6sar, and of Augustus too, the Bonaparte and parricide scoundrel of that\nday. I have had, and still have, such entire confidence in the late and\npresent Presidents, that I willingly put both soul and body into their\npockets. While such men as yourself and your worthy colleagues of the\nlegislature, and such characters as compose the executive administration,\nare watching for us all, I slumber without fear, and review in my dreams\nthe visions of antiquity. There is, indeed, one evil which awakens me\nat times, because it jostles me at every turn. It is that we have now no\nmeasure of value. I am asked eighteen dollars for a yard of broadcloth,\nwhich, when we had dollars, I used to get for eighteen shillings; from\nthis I can only understand that a dollar is now worth but two inches of\nbroadcloth, but broadcloth is no standard of measure or value. I do not\nknow, therefore, whereabouts I stand in the scale of property, nor what\nto ask, or what to give for it. I saw, indeed, the like machinery in\naction in the years '80 and '81, and without dissatisfaction; because in\nwearing out, it was working out our salvation. But I see nothing in this\nrenewal of the game of \"Robin's alive\" but a general demoralization of\nthe nation, a filching from industry its honest earnings, wherewith to\nbuild up palaces, and raise gambling stock for swindlers and shavers, who\nare too close to their career of piracies by fraudulent bankruptcies.\nMy dependence for a remedy, however, is with the wisdom which grows\nwith time and suffering. Whether the succeeding generation is to be more\nvirtuous than their predecessors, I cannot say; but I am sure they will\nhave more worldly wisdom, and enough, I hope, to know that honesty is\nthe first chapter in the book of wisdom. I have made a great exertion to\nwrite you thus much; my antipathy to taking up a pen being so intense\nthat I have never given you a stronger proof, than in the effort of\nwriting a letter, how much I value you, and of the superlative respect\nand friendship with which I salute you.\n\n\nTO MR. ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 21, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am indebted to you for Mr. Bowditch's very learned\nmathematical papers, the calculations of which are not for every reader,\nalthough their results are readily enough understood. One of these\nimpairs the confidence I had reposed in La Place's demonstration, that\nthe eccentricities of the planets of our system could oscillate only\nwithin narrow limits, and therefore could authorize no inference that\nthe system must, by its own laws, come one day to an end. This would\nhave left the question one of infinitude, at both ends of the line of\ntime, clear of physical authority.\n\nMr. Pickering's pamphlet on the pronunciation of the Greek, for which I\nam indebted to you also, I have read with great pleasure. Early in life,\nthe idea occurred to me that the people now inhabiting the ancient seats\nof the Greeks and Romans, although their languages in the intermediate\nages had suffered great changes, and especially in the declension of\ntheir nouns, and in the terminations of their words generally, yet\nhaving preserved the body of the word radically the same, so they would\npreserve more of its pronunciation. That at least it was probable that\na pronunciation, handed down by tradition, would retain, as the words\nthemselves do, more of the original than that of any other people whose\nlanguage has no affinity to that original. For this reason I learnt,\nand have used the Italian pronunciation of the Latin. But that of the\nmodern Greeks I had no opportunity of learning until I went to Paris.\nThere I became acquainted with two learned Greeks, Count Carberri and\nMr. Paradise, and with a lady, a native Greek, the daughter of Baron de\nTott, who did not understand the ancient language. Carberri and Paradise\nspoke it. From these instructors I learnt the modern pronunciation,\nand in _general_ trusted to its orthodoxy. I say, _in general_, because\nsound being more fugitive than the written letter, we must, after such\na lapse of time, presume in it some degeneracies, as we see there are\nin the written words. We may not, indeed, be able to put our finger on\nthem confidently, yet neither are they entirely beyond the reach of all\nindication. For example, in a language so remarkable for the euphony of\nits sounds, if that euphony is preserved in particular combinations of\nits letters, by an adherence to the powers ordinarily ascribed to them,\nand is destroyed by a change of these powers, and the sound of the word\nthereby rendered harsh, inharmonious, and inidiomatical, here we may\npresume some degeneracy has taken place. While, therefore, I gave in\nto the modern pronunciation generally, I have presumed, as an instance\nof degeneracy, their ascribing the same sound to the six letters, or\ncombinations of letters, \u03b5, \u03b9, \u03c5, \u03b5\u03b9, \u03bf\u03b9, \u03c5\u03b9, to all of which they give\nthe sound of our double _e_ in the word _meet_. This useless equivalence\nof three vowels and three diphthongs, did not probably exist among the\nancient Greeks; and the less probably as, while this single sound, _ee_,\nis overcharged by so many different representative characters, the sounds\nwe usually give to these characters and combinations would be left without\nany representative signs. This would imply either that they had not these\nsounds in their language, or no signs for their expression. Probability\nappears to me, therefore, against the practice of the modern Greeks of\ngiving the same sound to all these different representatives, and to be\nin favor of that of foreign nations, who, adopting the Roman characters,\nhave assimilated to them, in a considerable degree, the powers of the\ncorresponding Greek letters. I have, accordingly, excepted this in my\nadoption of the modern pronunciation. I have been more doubtful in the\nuse of the \u03b1\u03c5, \u03b5\u03c5, \u03b7\u03c5, \u03c9\u03c5, sounding the \u03c5, upsilon, as our _f_ or _v_,\nbecause I find traces of that power of \u03c5, or of _v_, in some modern\nlanguages. To go no further than our own, we have it in _laugh_, _cough_,\n_trough_, _enough_. The county of Louisa, adjacent to that in which I\nlive, was, when I was a boy, universally pronounced Lovisa. That it is\nnot the _gh_ which gives the sound of _f_ or _v_, in these words, is\nproved by the orthography of _plough_, _trough_, _thought_, _fraught_,\n_caught_. The modern Greeks themselves, too, giving up \u03c5, upsilon, in\nordinary, the sound of our _ee_, strengthens the presumption that its\nanomalous sound of _f_ or _v_, is a corruption. The same may be inferred\nfrom the cacophony of \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bd\u03b5 (elavne) for \u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5, (elawne,) \u0391\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c6\u03c2\n(Achillefs) for \u0391\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2, (Achilleise,) \u03b5\u03c6\u03c2 (eves) for \u03b5\u03cb\u03c2, (eeuse,)\n\u03bf\u03c6\u03ba (ovk) for ouk, (ouk,) \u03c9\u03c6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (ovetos) for \u03c9\u03cb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, (o-u-tos,) \u0396\u03b5\u03c6\u03c2 (zevs)\nfor \u0396\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 (zese,) of which all nations have made their Jupiter; and the\nuselessness of the \u03c5 in \u03b5\u03c5\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 which would otherwise have been spelt\n\u03b5\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1. I therefore except this also from what I consider as approvable\npronunciation.\n\nAgainst reading Greek by accent, instead of quantity, as Mr. Ciceitira\nproposes, I raise both my hands. What becomes of the sublime measure of\nHomer, the full sounding rhythm of Demosthenes, if, abandoning quantity,\nyou chop it up by accent? What ear can hesitate in its choice between\nthe two following rhythms?\n\n \"T\u1f78\u03bd, \u03b4' \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u1f78\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c9\u03ba\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0391\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2,\n\nand,\n\n \u03a4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4' \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ce\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2 \u0391\u03c7\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2,\"\n\nthe latter noted according to prosody, the former by accent, and\ndislocating our teeth in its utterance; every syllable of it, except the\nfirst and last, being pronounced against quantity. And what becomes of\nthe art of prosody? Is that perfect coincidence of its rules with the\nstructure of their verse, merely accidental? or was it of design, and\nyet for no use.\n\nOn the whole, I rejoice that this subject is taken up among us, and that\nit is in so able hands as those of Mr. Pickering. Should he ultimately\nestablish the modern pronunciation of the letters without any exception,\nI shall think it a great step gained, and giving up my exceptions,\nshall willingly rally to him; and as he has promised us another paper\non the question whether we shall read by quantity or by accent, I can\nconfidently trust it to the correctness of his learning and judgment.\nOf the origin of accentuation, I have never seen satisfactory proofs.\nBut I have generally supposed the accents were intended to direct the\ninflections and modulations of the voice; but not to affect the quantity\nof the syllables. You did not expect, I am sure, to draw on yourself so\nlong a disquisition on letters and sounds, nor did I intend it, but the\nsubject run before me, and yet I have dropped much of it by the way.\n\nI am delighted with your high approbation of Mr. Tracy's book. The evils\nof this deluge of paper money are not to be removed, until our citizens\nare generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences,\nand silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of\nspeculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then we must be\ncontent to return, _quod hoc_, to the savage state, to recur to barter\nin the exchange of our property, for want of a stable, common measure of\nvalue, that now in use being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the\nIndian, and to deliver up our citizens, their property and their labor,\npassive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers and mountebankers. If\nI had your permission to put your letter into the hands of the editor,\n(Milligan,) with or without any verbal alterations you might choose, it\nwould ensure the general circulation, which my prospectus and prefatory\nletter will less effectually recommend. There is nothing in the book of\nmine but these two articles, and the note on taxation in page 202. I never\nknew who the translator was; but I thought him some one who understood\nneither French nor English; and probably a Caledonian, from the number\nof Scotticisms I found in his MS. The innumerable corrections in that,\ncost me more labor than would have done a translation of the whole _de\nnovo_; and made at last but an inelegant although faithful version of\nthe sense of the author. _Dios guarde \u00e1 V. S. muchos a\u00f1os._\n\n\nTO DOCTOR VINE UTLEY.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 21, 1819.\n\nSIR,--Your letter of February the 18th came to hand on the 1st instant;\nand the request of the history of my physical habits would have puzzled\nme not a little, had it not been for the model with which you accompanied\nit, of Doctor Rush's answer to a similar inquiry. I live so much like\nother people, that I might refer to ordinary life as the history of my\nown. Like my friend the Doctor, I have lived temperately, eating little\nanimal food, and that not as an aliment, so much as a condiment for the\nvegetables, which constitute my principal diet. I double, however, the\nDoctor's glass and a half of wine, and even treble it with a friend; but\nhalve its effects by drinking the weak wines only. The ardent wines I\ncannot drink, nor do I use ardent spirits in any form. Malt liquors and\ncider are my table drinks, and my breakfast, like that also of my friend,\nis of tea and coffee. I have been blest with organs of digestion which\naccept and concoct, without ever murmuring, whatever the palate chooses\nto consign to them, and I have not yet lost a tooth by age. I was a hard\nstudent until I entered on the business of life, the duties of which\nleave no idle time to those disposed to fulfil them; and now, retired,\nand at the age of seventy-six, I am again a hard student. Indeed, my\nfondness for reading and study revolts me from the drudgery of letter\nwriting. And a stiff wrist, the consequence of an early dislocation, makes\nwriting both slow and painful. I am not so regular in my sleep as the\nDoctor says he was, devoting to it from five to eight hours, according\nas my company or the book I am reading interests me; and I never go to\nbed without an hour, or half hour's previous reading of something moral,\nwhereon to ruminate in the intervals of sleep. But whether I retire to\nbed early or late, I rise with the sun. I use spectacles at night, but\nnot necessarily in the day, unless in reading small print. My hearing is\ndistinct in particular conversation, but confused when several voices\ncross each other, which unfits me for the society of the table. I have\nbeen more fortunate than my friend in the article of health. So free\nfrom catarrhs that I have not had one, (in the breast, I mean) on an\naverage of eight or ten years through life. I ascribe this exemption\npartly to the habit of bathing my feet in cold water every morning, for\nsixty years past. A fever of more than twenty-four hours I have not had\nabove two or three times in my life. A periodical headache has afflicted\nme occasionally, once, perhaps, in six or eight years, for two or three\nweeks at a time, which seems now to have left me; and except on a late\noccasion of indisposition, I enjoy good health; too feeble, indeed, to\nwalk much, but riding without fatigue six or eight miles a day, and\nsometimes thirty or forty. I may end these egotisms, therefore, as I\nbegan, by saying that my life has been so much like that of other people,\nthat I might say with Horace, to every one \"_nomine mutato, narratur\nfabula de te_.\" I must not end, however, without due thanks for the kind\nsentiments of regard you are so good as to express towards myself; and\nwith my acknowledgments for these, be pleased to accept the assurances\nof my respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO MR. SPAFFORD.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 11, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The interest on the late derangement of my health which was so\nkindly expressed by many, could not but be gratifying to me, as much as\nit manifested a sentiment that I had not been merely an useless cypher\nof society. Yet a decline of health at the age of 76, was naturally to\nbe expected, and is a warning of an event which cannot be distant, and\nwhose approach I contemplate with little concern; for indeed, in no\ncircumstance has nature been kinder to us, than in the soft gradations\nby which she prepares us to part willingly with what we are not destined\nalways to retain. First one faculty is withdrawn and then another, sight,\nhearing, memory, affections, and friends, filched one by one, till we are\nleft among strangers, the mere monuments of times, facts, and specimens\nof antiquity for the observation of the curious.\n\nTo your request of materials for writing my life, I know not what to\nsay, although I have been obliged to say something to several preceding\napplications of the same kind. One answer indeed is obvious, that I\nam by decay of memory, aversion to labor, and cares more suited to my\nsituation, unequal to such a task. Of the public transactions in which\nI have borne a part, I have kept no narrative with a view of history. A\nlife of constant action leaves no time for recording. Always thinking\nof what is next to be done, what has been done is dismissed, and soon\nobliterated from the memory. I cannot be insensible to the partiality\nwhich has induced several persons to think my life worthy of remembrance.\nAnd towards none more than yourself, who give me so much credit more than\nI am entitled to, as to what has been effected for the safeguard of our\nrepublican constitution. Numerous and able coadjutors have participated\nin these efforts, and merit equal notice. My life, in fact, has been\nso much like that of others, that their history is my history, with\na mere difference of feature. The only valuable materials for history\nwhich I possessed, were the pamphlets of the day, carefully collected\nand preserved; but these past on to Congress with my library, and are\nto be found in their depository. Except the Notes on Virginia, I never\nwrote anything but acts of office, of which I rarely kept a copy. These\nwill all be found in the journals and gazettes of the times. There was\na book published in England about 1801, or soon after, entitled \"Public\nCharacters,\" in which was given a sketch of my history to that period. I\nnever knew, nor could conjecture by whom this was written; but certainly\nby some one pretty intimately acquainted with myself and my connections.\nThere were a few inconsiderable errors in it, but in general it was\ncorrect. Delaplaine, in his Repository, has also given some outlines on\nthe same subject; he sets out indeed with an error as to the county of\nmy birth. Chesterfield, which he states as such, was the residence of my\ngrandfather and remoter ancestors, but Albemarle was that of my father,\nand of my own birth and residence. Excepting this error, I remark no other\nbut in his ascriptions of more merit than I have deserved. Girardin's\nHistory of Virginia, too, gives many particulars on the same subject,\nwhich are correct. These publications furnish all the details of facts\nand dates which can interest anybody, and more than I could now furnish\nmyself from a decayed memory, or any notes I retain. While, therefore,\nI feel just acknowledgments for the partial selection of a subject for\nyour employment, I am persuaded you will perceive there is too little\nnew and worthy of public notice to devote to it a time which may be so\nmuch more usefully employed; and with a due sense of the partiality of\nyour friendship, I salute you with assurances of the greatest esteem\nand respect.\n\n\nTO S. A. WELLS, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 12, 1819.\n\nSIR,--An absence of some time at an occasional and distant residence\nmust apologize for the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your favor\nof April 12th. And candor obliges me to add that it has been somewhat\nextended by an aversion to writing, as well as to calls on my memory for\nfacts so much obliterated from it by time as to lessen my confidence in\nthe traces which seem to remain. One of the inquiries in your letter,\nhowever, may be answered without an appeal to the memory. It is that\nrespecting the question whether committees of correspondence originated\nin Virginia or Massachusetts? On which you suppose me to have claimed it\nfor Virginia. But certainly I have never made such a claim. The idea, I\nsuppose, has been taken up from what is said in Wirt's history of Mr.\nHenry, p. 87, and from an inexact attention to its precise terms. It\nis there said \"this house [of burgesses of Virginia] had the merit of\noriginating that powerful engine of resistance, corresponding committees\n_between the legislatures of the different colonies_.\" That the fact as\nhere expressed is true, your letter bears witness when it says that the\nresolutions of Virginia for this purpose were transmitted to the speakers\nof the different Assemblies, and by that of Massachusetts was laid at\nthe next session before that body, who appointed a committee for the\nspecified object: adding, \"thus in Massachusetts there were two committees\nof correspondence, one chosen by the people, the other appointed by\nthe House of Assembly; in the former, Massachusetts preceded Virginia;\nin the latter, Virginia preceded Massachusetts.\" To the origination of\ncommittees for the interior correspondence between the counties and towns\nof a State, I know of no claim on the part of Virginia; but certainly\nnone was ever made by myself. I perceive, however, one error into\nwhich memory had led me. Our committee for national correspondence was\nappointed in March, '73, and I well remember that going to Williamsburg\nin the month of June following, Peyton Randolph, our chairman, told me\nthat messengers, bearing despatches between the two States, had crossed\neach other by the way; that of Virginia carrying our propositions for a\ncommittee of national correspondence, and that of Massachusetts bringing,\nas my memory suggested, a similar proposition. But here I must have\nmisremembered; and the resolutions brought us from Massachusetts were\nprobably those you mention of the town meeting of Boston, on the motion\nof Mr. Samuel Adams, appointing a committee \"to state the rights of the\ncolonists, and of that province in particular, and the infringements\nof them, to communicate them to the several towns, as the sense of the\ntown of Boston, and to request of each town a free communication of its\nsentiments on this subject\"? I suppose, therefore, that these resolutions\nwere not received, as you think, while the House of Burgesses was in\nsession in March, 1773; but a few days after we rose, and were probably\nwhat was sent by the messenger who crossed ours by the way. They may,\nhowever, have been still different. I must therefore have been mistaken\nin supposing and stating to Mr. Wirt, that the proposition of a committee\nfor national correspondence was nearly simultaneous in Virginia and\nMassachusetts.\n\nA similar misapprehension of another passage in Mr. Wirt's book, for\nwhich I am also quoted, has produced a similar reclamation of the part of\nMassachusetts by some of her most distinguished and estimable citizens.\nI had been applied to by Mr. Wirt for such facts respecting Mr. Henry,\nas my intimacy with him, and participation in the transactions of the\nday, might have placed within my knowledge. I accordingly committed them\nto paper, and Virginia being the theatre of his action, was the only\nsubject within my contemplation, while speaking of him. Of the resolutions\nand measures here, in which he had the acknowledged lead, I used the\nexpression that \"Mr. Henry certainly gave the first impulse to the ball\nof revolution.\" [Wirt, p. 41.] The expression is indeed general, and in\nall its extension would comprehend all the sister States. But indulgent\nconstruction would restrain it, as was really meant, to the subject\nmatter under contemplation, which was Virginia alone; according to the\nrule of the lawyers, and a fair canon of general criticism, that every\nexpression should be construed _secundum subjectam materiem_. Where the\nfirst attack was made, there must have been of course, the first act\nof resistance, and that was of Massachusetts. Our first overt act of\nwar was Mr. Henry's embodying a force of militia from several counties,\nregularly armed and organized, marching them in military array, and\nmaking reprisal on the King's treasury at the seat of government for\nthe public powder taken away by his Governor. This was on the last days\nof April, 1775. Your formal battle of Lexington was ten or twelve days\nbefore that, which greatly overshadowed in importance, as it preceded\nin time our little affray, which merely amounted to a levying of arms\nagainst the King, and very possibly you had had military affrays before\nthe regular battle of Lexington.\n\nThese explanations will, I hope, assure you, Sir, that so far as either\nfacts or opinions have been truly quoted from me, they have never been\nmeant to intercept the just fame of Massachusetts, for the promptitude\nand perseverance of her early resistance. We willingly cede to her the\nlaud of having been (although not exclusively) \"the cradle of sound\nprinciples,\" and if some of us believe she has deflected from them in\nher course, we retain full confidence in her ultimate return to them.\n\nI will now proceed to your quotation from Mr. Galloway's statements\nof what passed in Congress on their declaration of independence, in\nwhich statement there is not one word of truth, and where, bearing some\nresemblance to truth, it is an entire perversion of it. I do not charge\nthis on Mr. Galloway himself; his desertion having taken place long\nbefore these measures, he doubtless received his information from some of\nthe loyal friends whom he left behind him. But as yourself, as well as\nothers, appear embarrassed by inconsistent accounts of the proceedings\non that memorable occasion, and as those who have endeavored to restore\nthe truth have themselves committed some errors, I will give you some\nextracts from a written document on that subject, for the truth of\nwhich I pledge myself to heaven and earth; having, while the question\nof independence was under consideration before Congress, taken written\nnotes, in my seat, of what was passing, and reduced them to form on\nthe final conclusion. I have now before me that paper, from which the\nfollowing are extracts:\n\n\"On Friday the 7th of June, 1776, the delegates from Virginia moved,\nin obedience to instructions from their constituents, that the Congress\nshould declare that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be,\nfree and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance\nto the British crown, and that all political connection between them\nand the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved;\nthat measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance\nof foreign powers, and a confederation be formed to bind the colonies\nmore closely together. The house being obliged to attend at that time to\nsome other business, the proposition was referred to the next day, when\nthe members were ordered to attend punctually at ten o'clock. Saturday,\nJune 8th, they proceeded to take it into consideration, and referred\nit to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately resolved\nthemselves, and passed that day and Monday the 10th in debating on the\nsubject.\n\n\"It appearing in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New\nYork, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina\nwere not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were\nfast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait awhile\nfor them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st. But that this\nmight occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was appointed\nto prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were J. Adams,\nDr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston and myself. This was\nreported to the House on Friday the 28th of June, when it was read and\nordered to lie on the table. On Monday the 1st of July the House resolved\nitself into a committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of\nthe original motion made by the delegates of Virginia, which being again\ndebated through the day, was carried in the affirmative by the votes of\nNew Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey,\nMaryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina and\nPennsylvania] voted against it. Delaware having but two members present,\nthey were divided. The delegates for New York declared they were for it\nthemselves, and were assured their constituents were for it; but that\ntheir instructions having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when\nreconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them\nto do nothing which should impede that object. They therefore thought\nthemselves not justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to\nwithdraw from the question, which was given them. The Committee rose and\nreported their resolution to the House. Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina,\nthen requested the determination might be put off to the next day, as\nhe believed his colleagues, though they disapproved of the resolution,\nwould then join in it for the sake of unanimity. The ultimate question\nwhether the House would agree to the resolution of the committee was\naccordingly postponed to the next day, when it was again moved, and South\nCarolina concurred in voting for it; in the meantime a third member had\ncome post from the Delaware counties, and turned the vote of that colony\nin favor of the resolution. Members of a different sentiment attending\nthat morning from Pennsylvania also, their vote was changed; so that\nthe whole twelve colonies, who were authorized to vote at all, gave\ntheir votes for it; and within a few days, [July 9th,] the convention of\nNew York approved of it, and thus supplied the void occasioned by the\nwithdrawing of their delegates from the vote.\" [Be careful to observe\nthat this vacillation and vote was on the original motion of the 7th of\nJune by the Virginia delegates, that Congress should declare the colonies\nindependent.]\n\n\"Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of\nIndependence, which has been reported and laid on the table the Friday\npreceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The\npusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms\nwith, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages\nwhich conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest\nthey give them offence. The debates having taken up the greater parts\nof the 2d, 3d and 4th days of July, were, in the evening of the last,\nclosed. The declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the\nHouse, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson.\" So far\nmy notes.\n\nGovernor McKean, in his letter to McCorkle of July 16th, 1817, has\nthrown some lights on the transactions of that day, but trusting to\nhis memory chiefly at an age when our memories are not to be trusted,\nhe has confounded two questions, and ascribed proceedings to one which\nbelonged to the other. These two questions were, 1. The Virginia motion\nof June 7th to declare independence, and 2. The actual declaration, its\nmatter and form. Thus he states the question on the declaration itself\nas decided on the 1st of July. But it was the Virginia motion which was\nvoted on that day in committee of the whole; South Carolina, as well as\nPennsylvania, then voting against it. But the ultimate decision in _the\nHouse_ on the report of the committee being by request postponed to the\nnext morning, all the States voted for it, except New York, whose vote\nwas delayed for the reason before stated. It was not till the 2d of July\nthat the declaration itself was taken up, nor till the 4th that it was\ndecided; and it was signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.\n\nThe subsequent signatures of members who were not then present, and some\nof them not yet in office, is easily explained, if we observe who they\nwere; to wit, that they were of New York and Pennsylvania. New York did\nnot sign till the 15th, because it was not till the 9th, (five days after\nthe general signature,) that their convention authorized them to do so.\nThe convention of Pennsylvania, learning that it had been signed by a\nminority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on the 20th,\nleaving out Mr. Dickinson, who had refused to sign. Willing and Humphreys\nwho had withdrawn, reappointing the three members who had signed, Morris\nwho had not been present, and five new ones, to wit, Rush, Clymer, Smith,\nTaylor and Ross; and Morris and the five new members were permitted to\nsign, because it manifested the assent of their full delegation, and the\nexpress will of their convention, which might have been doubted on the\nformer signature of a minority only. Why the signature of Thornton of\nNew Hampshire was permitted so late as the 4th of November, I cannot now\nsay; but undoubtedly for some particular reason which we should find to\nhave been good, had it been expressed. These were the only post-signers,\nand you see, Sir, that there were solid reasons for receiving those of\nNew York and Pennsylvania, and that this circumstance in no wise affects\nthe faith of this declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights\nof man.\n\nWith a view to correct errors of fact before they become inveterate by\nrepetition, I have stated what I find essentially material in my papers;\nbut with that brevity which the labor of writing constrains me to use.\n\nOn the fourth particular articles of inquiry in your letter, respecting\nyour grandfather, the venerable Samuel Adams, neither memory nor\nmemorandums enable me to give any information. I can say that he was\ntruly a great man, wise in council, fertile in resources, immovable in\nhis purposes, and had, I think, a greater share than any other member, in\nadvising and directing our measures, in the northern war especially. As a\nspeaker he could not be compared with his living colleague and namesake,\nwhose deep conceptions, nervous style, and undaunted firmness, made him\ntruly our bulwark in debate. But Mr. Samuel Adams, although not of fluent\nelocution, was so rigorously logical, so clear in his views, abundant in\ngood sense, and master always of his subject, that he commanded the most\nprofound attention whenever he rose in an assembly by which the froth\nof declamation was heard with the most sovereign contempt. I sincerely\nrejoice that the record of his worth is to be undertaken by one so much\ndisposed as you will be to hand him down fairly to that posterity for\nwhose liberty and happiness he was so zealous a laborer.\n\nWith sentiments of sincere veneration for his memory, accept yourself\nthis tribute to it with the assurances of my great respect.\n\nP. S. August 6th, 1822, since the date of this letter, to wit, this day,\nAugust 6th, '22, I received the new publication of the secret Journals\nof Congress, wherein is stated a resolution, July 19th, 1776, that the\ndeclaration passed on the 4th be fairly engrossed on parchment, and when\nengrossed, be signed by every member; and another of August 2d, that being\nengrossed and compared at the table, was signed by the members. That is\nto say the copy engrossed on parchment (for durability) was signed by the\nmembers after being compared at the table with the original one, signed\non paper as before stated. I add this P. S. to the copy of my letter\nto Mr. Wells, to prevent confounding the signature of the original with\nthat of the copy engrossed on parchment.\n\n\nTO EZRA STYLES, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 25, 1819.\n\nYour favor, Sir, of the 14th, has been duly received, and with it the\nbook you were so kind as to forward to me. For this mark of attention, be\npleased to accept my thanks. The science of the human mind is curious,\nbut is one on which I have not indulged myself in much speculation.\nThe times in which I have lived, and the scenes in which I have been\nengaged, have required me to keep the mind too much in action to have\nleisure to study minutely its laws of action. I am therefore little\nqualified to give an opinion on the comparative worth of books on that\nsubject, and little disposed to do it on any book. Yours has brought\nthe science within a small compass, and that is the merit of the first\norder; and especially with one to whom the drudgery of letter writing\noften denies the leisure of reading a single page in a week. On looking\nover the summary of the contents of your book, it does not seem likely\nto bring into collision any of those sectarian differences which you\nsuppose may exist between us. In that branch of religion which regards\nthe moralities of life, and the duties of a social being, which teaches\nus to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do good to all men, I am\nsure that you and I do not differ. We probably differ in the dogmas of\ntheology, the foundation of all sectarianism, and on which no two sects\ndream alike; for if they did they would then be of the same. You say\nyou are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I\nknow. I am not a Jew, and therefore do not adopt their theology, which\nsupposes the God of infinite justice to punish the sins of the fathers\nupon their children, unto the third and fourth generation; and the\nbenevolent and sublime reformer of that religion has told us only that\nGod is good and perfect, but has not defined him. I am, therefore, of his\ntheology, believing that we have neither words nor ideas adequate to that\ndefinition. And if we could all, after this example, leave the subject as\nundefinable, we should all be of one sect, doers of good, and eschewers\nof evil. No doctrines of his lead to schism. It is the speculations of\ncrazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral\nand sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to\ncreate differences. These religious animosities I impute to those who\ncall themselves his ministers, and who engraft their casuistries on the\nstock of his simple precepts. I am sometimes more angry with them than\nis authorized by the blessed charities which he preaches. To yourself\nI pray the acceptance of my great respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 9, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am in debt to you for your letters of May the 21st, 27th,\nand June the 22d. The first, delivered me by Mr. Greenwood, gave me the\ngratification of his acquaintance; and a gratification it always is, to\nbe made acquainted with gentlemen of candor, worth, and information, as\nI found Mr. Greenwood to be. That, on the subject of Mr. Samuel Adams\nWells, shall not be forgotten in time and place, when it can be used to\nhis advantage.\n\nBut what has attracted my peculiar notice, is the paper from Mecklenburg\ncounty, of North Carolina, published in the Essex Register, which you\nwere so kind as to enclose in your last, of June the 22d. And you seem\nto think it genuine. I believe it spurious. I deem it to be a very\nunjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely related to us\nas having broken out in North Carolina, some half a dozen years ago, in\nthat part of the country, and perhaps in that very county of Mecklenburg,\nfor I do not remember its precise locality. If this paper be really taken\nfrom the Raleigh Register, as quoted, I wonder it should have escaped\nRitchie, who culls what is good from every paper, as the bee from every\nflower; and the National Intelligencer, too, which is edited by a North\nCarolinian; and that the fire should blaze out all at once in Essex,\none thousand miles from where the spark is said to have fallen. But if\nreally taken from the Raleigh Register, who is the narrator, and is the\nname subscribed real, or is it as fictitious as the paper itself? It\nappeals, too, to an original book, which is burnt, to Mr. Alexander,\nwho is dead, to a joint letter from Caswell, Hughes, and Hooper, all\ndead, to a copy sent to the dead Caswell, and another sent to Doctor\nWilliamson, now probably dead, whose memory did not recollect, in the\nhistory he has written of North Carolina, this gigantic step of its\ncounty of Mecklenberg. Horry, too, is silent in his history of Marion,\nwhose scene of action was the country bordering on Mecklenburg. Ramsay,\nMarshall, Jones, Girardin, Wirt, historians of the adjacent States,\nall silent. When Mr. Henry's resolutions, far short of independence,\nflew like lightning through every paper, and kindled both sides of the\nAtlantic, this flaming declaration of the same date, of the independence\nof Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, absolving it from the British\nallegiance, and abjuring all political connection with that nation,\nalthough sent to Congress too, is never heard of. It is not known even\na twelvemonth after, when a similar proposition is first made in that\nbody. Armed with this bold example, would not you have addressed our\ntimid brethren in peals of thunder on their tardy fears? Would not every\nadvocate of independence have rung the glories of Mecklenberg county in\nNorth Carolina, in the ears of the doubting Dickinson and others, who\nhung so heavily on us? Yet the example of independent Mecklenberg county,\nin North Carolina, was never once quoted. The paper speaks, too, of the\ncontinued exertions of their delegation (Caswell, Hooper, Hughes) \"in\nthe cause of liberty and independence.\" Now you remember as well as I\ndo, that we had not a greater tory in Congress than Hooper; that Hughes\nwas very wavering, sometimes firm, sometimes feeble, according as the\nday was clear or cloudy; that Caswell, indeed, was a good whig, and kept\nthese gentlemen to the notch, while he was present; but that he left us\nsoon, and their line of conduct became then uncertain until Penn came,\nwho fixed Hughes and the vote of the State. I must not be understood as\nsuggesting any doubtfulness in the State of North Carolina. No State was\nmore fixed or forward. Nor do I affirm, positively, that this paper is\na fabrication; because the proof of a negative can only be presumptive.\nBut I shall believe it such until positive and solemn proof of its\nauthenticity be produced. And if the name of McKnitt be real, and not\na part of the fabrication, it needs a vindication by the production of\nsuch proof. For the present, I must be an unbeliever in the apocryphal\ngospel.\n\nI am glad to learn that Mr. Ticknor has safely returned to his friends;\nbut should have been much more pleased had he accepted the Professorship\nin our University, which we should have offered him in form. Mr. Bowditch,\ntoo, refuses us; so fascinating is the _vinculum_ of the _dulce natale\nsolum_. Our wish is to procure natives, where they can be found, like\nthese gentlemen, of the first order of requirement in their respective\nlines; but preferring foreigners of the first order to natives of the\nsecond, we shall certainly have to go for several of our Professors, to\ncountries more advanced in science than we are.\n\nI set out within three or four days for my other home, the distance\nof which, and its cross mails, are great impediments to epistolary\ncommunications. I shall remain there about two months; and there, here,\nand everywhere, I am and shall always be, affectionately and respectfully\nyours.\n\n\nTO JOHN BRAZIER, THE AUTHOR OF THE REVIEW OF PICKERING ON GREEK\nPRONUNCIATION.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, August 24, 1819.\n\nSIR,--The acknowledgment of your favor of July 15th, and thanks for the\nReview which it covered of Mr. Pickering's Memoir on the Modern Greek,\nhave been delayed by a visit to an occasional but distant residence\nfrom Monticello, and to an attack here of rheumatism which is just now\nmoderating. I had been much pleased with the memoir, and was much also\nwith your review of it. I have little hope indeed of the recovery of\nthe ancient pronunciation of that finest of human languages, but still\nI rejoice at the attention the subject seems to excite with you, because\nit is an evidence that our country begins to have a taste for something\nmore than merely as much Greek as will pass a candidate for clerical\nordination.\n\nYou ask my opinion on the extent to which classical learning should\nbe carried in our country. A sickly condition permits me to think, and\na rheumatic hand to write too briefly on this litigated question. The\nutilities we derive from the remains of the Greek and Latin languages\nare, first, as models of pure taste in writing. To these we are certainly\nindebted for the national and chaste style of modern composition which\nso much distinguishes the nations to whom these languages are familiar.\nWithout these models we should probably have continued the inflated\nstyle of our northern ancestors, or the hyperbolical and vague one of\nthe east. Second. Among the values of classical learning, I estimate\nthe luxury of reading the Greek and Roman authors in all the beauties\nof their originals. And why should not this innocent and elegant luxury\ntake its pre\u00ebminent stand ahead of all those addressed merely to the\nsenses? I think myself more indebted to my father for this than for\nall the other luxuries his cares and affections have placed within my\nreach; and more now than when younger, and more susceptible of delights\nfrom other sources. When the decays of age have enfeebled the useful\nenergies of the mind, the classic pages fill up the vacuum of _ennui_,\nand become sweet composers to that rest of the grave into which we are\nall sooner or later to descend. Third. A third value is in the stores\nof real science deposited and transmitted us in these languages, to-wit:\nin history, ethics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, natural history, &c.\n\nBut to whom are these things useful? Certainly not to all men. There\nare conditions of life to which they must be forever estranged, and\nthere are epochs of life too, after which the endeavor to attain them\nwould be a great misemployment of time. Their acquisition should be the\noccupation of our early years only, when the memory is susceptible of deep\nand lasting impressions, and reason and judgment not yet strong enough\nfor abstract speculations. To the moralist they are valuable, because\nthey furnish ethical writings highly and justly esteemed: although in\nmy own opinion, the moderns are far advanced beyond them in this line\nof science, the divine finds in the Greek language a translation of his\nprimary code, of more importance to him than the original because better\nunderstood; and, in the same language, the newer code, with the doctrines\nof the earliest fathers, who lived and wrote before the simple precepts\nof the founder of this most benign and pure of all systems of morality\nbecame frittered into subtleties and mysteries, and hidden under jargons\nincomprehensible to the human mind. To these original sources he must\nnow, therefore, return, to recover the virgin purity of his religion.\nThe lawyer finds in the Latin language the system of civil law most\nconformable with the principles of justice of any which has ever yet\nbeen established among men, and from which much has been incorporated\ninto our own. The physician as good a code of his art as has been given\nus to this day. Theories and systems of medicine, indeed, have been in\nperpetual change from the days of the good Hippocrates to the days of the\ngood Rush, but which of them is the true one? the present, to be sure,\nas long as it is the present, but to yield its place in turn to the next\nnovelty, which is then to become the true system, and is to mark the\nvast advance of medicine since the days of Hippocrates. Our situation\nis certainly benefited by the discovery of some new and very valuable\nmedicines; and substituting those for some of his with the treasure\nof facts, and of sound observations recorded by him (mixed to be sure\nwith anilities of his day) and we shall have nearly the present sum of\nthe healing art. The statesman will find in these languages history,\npolitics, mathematics, ethics, eloquence, love of country, to which he\nmust add the sciences of his own day, for which of them should be unknown\nto him? And all the sciences must recur to the classical languages for\nthe etymon, and sound understanding of their fundamental terms. For the\nmerchant I should not say that the languages are a necessary. Ethics,\nmathematics, geography, political economy, history, seem to constitute\nthe immediate foundations of his calling. The agriculturist needs ethics,\nmathematics, chemistry and natural philosophy. The mechanic the same.\nTo them the languages are but ornament and comfort. I know it is often\nsaid there have been shining examples of men of great abilities in all\nthe businesses of life, without any other science than what they had\ngathered from conversations and intercourse with the world. But who can\nsay what these men would not have been had they started in the science\non the shoulders of a Demosthenes or Cicero, of a Locke or Bacon, or\na Newton? To sum the whole, therefore, it may truly be said that the\nclassical languages are a solid basis for most, and an ornament to all\nthe sciences.\n\nI am warned by my aching fingers to close this hasty sketch, and to place\nhere my last and fondest wishes for the advancement of our country in\nthe useful sciences and arts, and my assurances of respect and esteem\nfor the Reviewer of the Memoir on modern Greek.\n\n\nTO JUDGE ROANE.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, September 6, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation,\nthe pieces signed Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled\napprobation, in the copies you have been so kind as to send me. I\nsubscribe to every title of them. They contain the true principles of the\nrevolution of 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles\nof our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed\nby the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument\nof reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by\ndismissing functionaries of one principle, and electing those of another,\nin the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their\nelection. Over the judiciary department, the constitution had deprived\nthem of their control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated\nsystem, and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into\nthe old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself\nthe new, and after twenty years' confirmation of the federated system\nby the voice of the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we\nfind the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation.\n\nIn denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the\nconstitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your\nquotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that \"the judiciary is the\nlast resort in relation _to the other departments_ of the government,\nbut not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under\nwhich the judiciary is derived.\" If this opinion be sound, then indeed\nis our constitution a complete _felo de se_. For intending to establish\nthree departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check\nand balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to\none of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of\nthe others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent\nof the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment\nit has provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the one\nyou combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not\nbelonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally\nthe public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line\nthey are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have\nexcited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted\nwith impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing\nof wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into\nany form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal\ntruth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent,\nis absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the\npeople is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence\ncan be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently\nindependent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is\nvery different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly\nindependent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself\nwhat is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its\naction; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.\nI will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was\nin office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them.\n\nA legislature had passed the sedition law. The federal courts had\nsubjected certain individuals to its penalties of fine and imprisonment.\nOn coming into office, I released these individuals by the power of\npardon committed to executive discretion, which could never be more\nproperly exercised than where citizens were suffering without the\nauthority of law, or, which was equivalent, under a law unauthorized by\nthe constitution, and therefore null. In the case of Marbury and Madison,\nthe federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the\nPresident, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential\nto complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the\nparty, is as yet no need, it is in _posse_ only, but not in _esse_, and\nI withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus\nto the President or legislature, or to any of their officers.[3] When\nthe British treaty of ---- arrived, without any provision against the\nimpressment of our seamen, I determined not to ratify it. The Senate\nthought I should ask their advice. I thought that would be a mockery of\nthem, when I was predetermined against following it, should they advise\nits ratification. The constitution had made their advice necessary to\nconfirm a treaty, but not to reject it. This has been blamed by some;\nbut I have never doubted its soundness. In the cases of two persons,\n_antenati_, under exactly similar circumstances, the federal court had\ndetermined that one of them (Duane) was not a citizen; the House of\nRepresentatives nevertheless determined that the other (Smith, of South\nCarolina) was a citizen, and admitted him to his seat in their body.\nDuane was a republican, and Smith a federalist, and these decisions were\nmade during the federal ascendancy.\n\nThese are examples of my position, that each of the three departments\nhas equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the\nconstitution, without any regard to what the others may have decided\nfor themselves under a similar question. But you intimate a wish that my\nopinion should be known on this subject. No, dear Sir, I withdraw from all\ncontests of opinion, and resign everything cheerfully to the generation\nnow in place. They are wiser than we were, and their successors will be\nwiser than they, from the progressive advance of science. Tranquillity\nis the _summum bonum_ of age. I wish, therefore, to offend no man's\nopinion, nor to draw disquieting animadversions on my own. While duty\nrequired it, I met opposition with a firm and fearless step. But loving\nmankind in my individual relations with them, I pray to be permitted to\ndepart in their peace; and like the superannuated soldier, \"_quadragenis\nstipendiis emeritis_,\" to hang my arms on the post. I have unwisely, I\nfear, embarked in an enterprise of great public concern, but not to be\naccomplished within my term, without their liberal and prompt support. A\nsevere illness the last year, and another from which I am just emerged,\nadmonish me that repetitions may be expected, against which a declining\nframe cannot long bear up. I am anxious, therefore, to get our University\nso far advanced as may encourage the public to persevere to its final\naccomplishment. That secured, I shall sing my _nunc demittas_. I hope\nyour labors will be long continued in the spirit in which they have\nalways been exercised, in maintenance of those principles on which I\nverily believe the future happiness of our country essentially depends.\nI salute you with affectionate and great respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [3] The constitution controlling the common law in this\n particular.\n\n\nTO MR. MOORE.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 22, 1819.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for the remarks on the pronunciation of the Greek\nlanguage which you have been so kind as to send me. I have read them with\npleasure, as I had the pamphlet of Mr. Pickering on the same subject.\nThis question has occupied long and learned inquiry, and cannot, as I\napprehend, be ever positively decided. Very early in my classical days,\nI took up the idea that the ancient Greek language having been changed\nby degrees into the modern, and the present race of that people having\nreceived it by tradition, they had of course better pretensions to the\nancient pronunciation also, than any foreign nation could have. When at\nParis, I became acquainted with some learned Greeks, from whom I took\npains to learn the modern pronunciation. But I could not receive it\nas genuine _in toto_. I could not believe that the ancient Greeks had\nprovided six different notations for the simple sound of \u03b9, iota, and\nleft the five other sounds which we give to \u03b7, \u03c5, \u03b5\u03b9, \u03bf\u03b9, \u03c5\u03b9, without any\ncharacters of notation at all. I could not acknowledge the \u03c5, upsillon,\nas an equivalent to our _v_, as in \u0391\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2, which they pronounce\nAchillevs, nor the \u03b3 gamma, to our _y_, as in \u03b1\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5', which they pronounce\nalye. I concluded, therefore, that as experience proves to us that the\npronunciation of all languages changes, in their descent through time,\nthat of the Greek must have done so also in some degree; and the more\nprobably, as the body of the words themselves had substantially changed,\nand I presumed that the instances above mentioned might be classed with\nthe degeneracies of time; a presumption strengthened by their remarkable\ncacophony. As to all the other letters, I have supposed we might yield\nto their traditionary claim of a more orthodox pronunciation. Indeed,\nthey sound most of them as we do, and, where they differ, as in the \u03b2, \u03b4,\n\u03c7, their sounds do not revolt us, nor impair the beauty of the language.\n\nIf we adhere to the Erasmian pronunciation, we must go to Italy for\nit, as we must do for the most probably correct pronunciation of the\nlanguage of the Romans, because rejecting the modern, we must argue\nthat the ancient pronunciation was probably brought from Greece, with\nthe language itself; and, as Italy was the country to which it was\nbrought, and from which it emanated to other nations, we must presume\nit better preserved there than with the nations copying from them, who\nwould be apt to affect its pronunciation with some of their own national\npeculiarities. And in fact, we find that no two nations pronounce it\nalike, although all pretend to the Erasmian pronunciation. But the whole\nsubject is conjectural, and allows therefore full and lawful scope to\nthe vagaries of the human mind. I am glad, however, to see the question\nstirred here; because it may excite among our young countrymen a spirit\nof inquiry and criticism, and lead them to more attention to this most\nbeautiful of all languages. And wishing that the salutary example you\nhave set may have this good effect, I salute you with great respect and\nconsideration.\n\n\nTO MR. SHORT.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 31, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 21st is received. My late illness, in which\nyou are so kind as to feel an interest, was produced by a spasmodic\nstricture of the ilium, which came upon me on the 7th inst. The crisis\nwas short, passed over favorably on the fourth day, and I should soon\nhave been well but that a dose of calomel and jalap, in which were only\neight or nine grains of the former, brought on a salivation. Of this,\nhowever, nothing now remains but a little soreness of the mouth. I have\nbeen able to get on horseback for three or four days past.\n\nAs you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not\nthe imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in\nmoral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. Epictetus indeed,\nhas given us what was good of the stoics; all beyond, of their dogmas,\nbeing hypocrisy and grimace. Their great crime was in their calumnies of\nEpicurus and misrepresentations of his doctrines; in which we lament to\nsee the candid character of Cicero engaging as an accomplice. Diffuse,\nvapid, rhetorical, but enchanting. His prototype Plato, eloquent as\nhimself, dealing out mysticisms incomprehensible to the human mind, has\nbeen deified by certain sects usurping the name of Christians; because,\nin his foggy conceptions, they found a basis of impenetrable darkness\nwhereon to rear fabrications as delirious, of their own invention.\nThese they fathered blasphemously on him whom they claimed as their\nfounder, but who would disclaim them with the indignation which their\ncaricatures of his religion so justly excite. Of Socrates we have nothing\ngenuine but in the Memorabilia of Xenophon; for Plato makes him one of\nhis Collocutors merely to cover his own whimsies under the mantle of\nhis name; a liberty of which we are told Socrates himself complained.\nSeneca is indeed a fine moralist, disfiguring his work at times with\nsome Stoicisms, and affecting too much of antithesis and point, yet\ngiving us on the whole a great deal of sound and practical morality. But\nthe greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own\ncountry, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the\nrubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from\nthe dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond\nfrom the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime\nmorality which has ever fallen from the lips of man; outlines which it is\nlamentable he did not live to fill up. Epictetus and Epicurus give laws\nfor governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of the duties and charities\nwe owe to others. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character\nof this benevolent moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of\nimposture, which has resulted from artificial systems,[4] invented by\nultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him,\nis a most desirable object, and one to which Priestley has successfully\ndevoted his labors and learning. It would in time, it is to be hoped,\neffect a quiet euthanasia of the heresies of bigotry and fanaticism which\nhave so long triumphed over human reason, and so generally and deeply\nafflicted mankind; but this work is to be begun by winnowing the grain\nfrom the chaff of the historians of his life. I have sometimes thought\nof translating Epictetus (for he has never been tolerably translated\ninto English) by adding the genuine doctrines of Epicurus from the\nSyntagma of Gassendi, and an abstract from the Evangelists of whatever\nhas the stamp of the eloquence and fine imagination of Jesus. The last\nI attempted too hastily some twelve or fifteen years ago. It was the\nwork of two or three nights only, at Washington, after getting through\nthe evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day. But with\none foot in the grave, these are now idle projects for me. My business\nis to beguile the wearisomeness of declining life, as I endeavor to do,\nby the delights of classical reading and of mathematical truths, and by\nthe consolations of a sound philosophy, equally indifferent to hope and\nfear.\n\nI take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of\nour master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you\nare yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that \"that indulgence\nwhich presents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to be\navoided.\" Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension\nof healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything\naround you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind,\nthe farthest of all things from the happiness which the well-regulated\nindulgences of Epicurus ensure; fortitude, you know, is one of his four\ncardinal virtues. That teaches us to meet and surmount difficulties; not\nto fly from them, like cowards; and to fly, too, in vain, for they will\nmeet and arrest us at every turn of our road. Weigh this matter well;\nbrace yourself up; take a seat with Correa, and come and see the finest\nportion of your country, which, if you have not forgotten, you still do\nnot know, because it is no longer the same as when you knew it. It will\nadd much to the happiness of my recovery to be able to receive Correa and\nyourself, and prove the estimation in which I hold you both. Come, too,\nand see our incipient University, which has advanced with great activity\nthis year. By the end of the next, we shall have elegant accommodations\nfor seven professors, and the year following the professors themselves.\nNo secondary character will be received among them. Either the ablest\nwhich America or Europe can furnish, or none at all. They will give us\nthe selected society of a great city separated from the dissipations\nand levities of its ephemeral insects.\n\nI am glad the bust of Condorcet has been saved and so well placed. His\ngenius should be before us; while the lamentable, but singular act of\ningratitude which tarnished his latter days, may be thrown behind us.\n\nI will place under this a syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus, somewhat\nin the lapidary style, which I wrote some twenty years ago, a like one\nof the philosophy of Jesus, of nearly the same age, is too long to be\ncopied. _Vale, et tibi persuade carissimum te esse mihi._\n\n _Syllabus of the doctrines of Epicurus._\n\n_Physical._--The Universe eternal.\n\nIts parts, great and small, interchangeable.\n\nMatter and Void alone.\n\nMotion inherent in matter which is weighty and declining.\n\nEternal circulation of the elements of bodies.\n\nGods, an order of beings next superior to man, enjoying in their sphere,\ntheir own felicities; but not meddling with the concerns of the scale\nof beings below them.\n\n_Moral._--Happiness the aim of life.\n\nVirtue the foundation of happiness.\n\nUtility the test of virtue.\n\nPleasure active and In-do-lent.\n\nIn-do-lence is the absence of pain, the true felicity.\n\nActive, consists in agreeable motion; it is not happiness, but the means\nto produce it.\n\nThus the absence of hunger is an article of felicity; eating the means\nto obtain it.\n\nThe _summum bonum_ is to be not pained in body, nor troubled in mind.\n\n_i. e._ In-do-lence of body, tranquillity of mind.\n\nTo procure tranquillity of mind we must avoid desire and fear, the two\nprincipal diseases of the mind.\n\nMan is a free agent.\n\nVirtue consists in 1. Prudence. 2. Temperance. 3. Fortitude. 4. Justice.\n\nTo which are opposed, 1. Folly. 2. Desire. 3. Fear. 4. Deceit.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [4] _e. g._ The immaculate conception of Jesus, his\n deification, the creation of the world by him, his\n miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension,\n his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity,\n original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of\n Hierarchy, &c.\n\n\nTO J. ADAMS, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 7, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Three long and dangerous illnesses within the last twelve\nmonths, must apologize for my long silence towards you.\n\nThe paper bubble is then burst. This is what you and I, and every\nreasoning man, seduced by no obliquity of mind or interest, have long\nforeseen; yet its disastrous effects are not the less for having been\nforeseen. We were laboring under a dropsical fulness of circulating\nmedium. Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, who have the\nregulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and who condense and\nexplode them at their will. Lands in this State cannot now be sold for\na year's rent; and unless our Legislature have wisdom enough to effect\na remedy by a gradual diminution only of the medium, there will be a\ngeneral revolution of property in this State. Over our own paper and that\nof other States coming among us, they have competent powers; over that of\nthe bank of the United States there is doubt, not here, but elsewhere.\nThat bank will probably conform voluntarily to such regulations as the\nLegislature may prescribe for the others. If they do not, we must shut\ntheir doors, and join the other States which deny the right of Congress\nto establish banks, and solicit them to agree to some mode of settling\nthis constitutional question. They have themselves twice decided against\ntheir right, and twice for it. Many of the States have been uniform in\ndenying it, and between such parties the Constitution has provided no\numpire. I do not know particularly the extent of this distress in the\nother States; but southwardly and westwardly I believe all are involved\nin it. God bless you, and preserve you many years.\n\n\nTO COLONEL JOHN NICHOLAS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 10, 1819.\n\nSIR,--Your letter, and the draught of a memorial proposed to be presented\nto the Legislature, are duly received. With respect to impressions from\nany differences of political opinion, whether major or minor, alluded\nto in your letter, I have none. I left them all behind me on quitting\nWashington, where alone the state of things had, till then, required\nsome attention to them. Nor was that the lightest part of the load I\nwas there disburthened of; and could I permit myself to believe that\nwith the change of circumstances a corresponding change had taken place\nin the minds of those who differed from me, and that I now stand in the\npeace and good will of my fellow-citizens generally, it would indeed be\na sweetening ingredient in the last dregs of my life. It is not then\nfrom that source that my testimony may be scanty, but from a decaying\nmemory, illy retaining things of recent transaction, and scarcely with\nany distinctness those of forty years back, the period to which your\nmemorial refers: general impressions of them remain, but details are\nmostly obliterated.\n\nOf the transfer of your corps from the general to the State line, and the\nother facts in the memorial preceding my entrance on the administration\nof the State government, June 2, 1779, I, of course, have no knowledge;\nbut public documents, as well as living witnesses, will probably supply\nthis. In 1780, I remember your appointment to a command in the militia\nsent under General Stevens to the aid of the Carolinas, of which fact the\ncommission signed by myself is sufficient proof. But I have no particular\nrecollections which respect yourself personally in that service. Of what\ntook place during Arnold's invasion in the subsequent winter I have\nmore knowledge, because so much passed under my own eye, and I have\nthe benefit of some notes to aid my memory. In the short interval of\nfifty-seven hours between our knowing they had entered James river and\ntheir actual debarkation at Westover, we could get together but a small\nbody of militia, (my notes say of three hundred men only,) chiefly from\nthe city and its immediate vicinities. You were placed in the command\nof these, and ordered to proceed to the neighborhood of the enemy, not\nwith any view to face them directly with so small a force, but to hang\non their skirts, and to check their march as much as could be done, to\ngive time for the more distant militia to assemble. The enemy were not\nto be delayed, however, and were in Richmond in twenty-four hours from\ntheir being formed on shore at Westover. The day before their arrival at\nRichmond, I had sent my family to Tuckahoe, as the memorial states, at\nwhich place I joined them about 1 o'clock of that night, having attended\nlate at Westham, to have the public stores and papers thrown across the\nriver. You came up to us at Tuckahoe the next morning, and accompanied\nme, I think, to Britton's opposite Westham, to see about the further\nsafety of the arms and other property. Whether you stayed there to look\nafter them, or went with me to the heights of Manchester, and returned\nthence to Britton's, I do not recollect. The enemy evacuated Richmond at\nnoon of the 5th of January, having remained there but twenty-three hours.\nI returned to it in the morning of the 8th, they being still encamped\nat Westover and Berkley, and yourself and corps at the Forest. They\nre-embarked at 1 o'clock of the 10th. The particulars of your movements\ndown the river, to oppose their re-landing at different points, I do\nnot specifically recollect, but, as stated in the memorial, they are so\nmuch in agreement with my general impressions, that I have no doubt of\ntheir correctness, and know that your conduct from the first advance\nof the enemy to his departure, was approved by myself and by others\ngenerally. The rendezvous of the militia at the Tuckahoe bridge, and\nyour having the command of them, I think I also remember, but nothing\nof their subsequent movements. The legislature had adjourned to meet at\nCharlottesville, where, at the expiration of my second year, I declined\na re-election in the belief that a military man would be more likely to\nrender services adequate to the exigencies of the times. Of the subsequent\nfacts, therefore, stated in the memorial, I have no knowledge.\n\nThis, Sir, is the sum of the information I am able to give on the\nsubjects of your memorial, and if it may contribute to the purposes of\njustice in your case, I shall be happy that in bearing testimony to the\ntruth, I shall have rendered you a just service. I return the memorial\nand commission, as requested, and pray you to accept my respectful\nsalutations.\n\n\nTO MR. RIVES.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 28, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The distresses of our country, produced first by the flood,\nthen by the ebb of bank paper, are such as cannot fail to engage the\ninterposition of the legislature. Many propositions will, of course, be\noffered, from all of which something may probably be culled to make a\ngood whole. I explained to you my project, when I had the pleasure of\npossessing you here; and I now send its outline in writing, as I believe\nI promised you. Although preferable things will I hope be offered, yet\nsome twig of this may perhaps be thought worthy of being engrafted on\na better stock. But I send it with no particular object or request,\nbut to use it as you please. Suppress it, suggest it, sound opinions,\nor anything else, at will, only keeping my name unmentioned, for which\npurpose it is copied in another hand, being ever solicitous to avoid\nall offence which is heavily felt, when retired from the bustle and\ncontentions of the world. If we suffer the moral of the present lesson\nto pass away without improvement by the eternal suppression of bank\n_paper_, then indeed is the condition of our country desperate, until\nthe slow advance of public instruction shall give to our functionaries\nthe wisdom of their station. _Vale, et tibi persuade carissimum te mihi\nesse._\n\n_Plan for reducing the circulating medium._\n\nThe plethory of circulating medium which raised the prices of everything\nto several times their ordinary and standard value, in which state of\nthings many and heavy debts were contracted; and the sudden withdrawing\ntoo great a proportion of that medium, and reduction of prices far below\nthat standard, constitute the disease under which we are now laboring,\nand which must end in a general revolution of property, if some remedy\nis not applied. That remedy is clearly a gradual reduction of the medium\nto its standard level, that is to say, to the level which a metallic\nmedium will always find for itself, so as to be in equilibrio with that\nof the nations with which we have commerce.\n\nTo effect this,\n\nLet the whole of the present paper medium be suspended in its circulation\nafter a certain and not distant day.\n\nAscertain by proper inquiry the greatest sum of it which has at any one\ntime been in actual circulation.\n\nTake a certain term of years for its gradual reduction, suppose it to be\nfive years; then let the solvent banks issue \u215a of that amount in new\nnotes, to be attested by a public officer, as a security that neither\nmore or less is issued, and to be given out in exchange for the suspended\nnotes, and the surplus in discount.\n\nLet \u2155th of these notes bear on their face that the bank will discharge\nthem with specie at the end of one year; another 5th at the end of two\nyears; a third 5th at the end of three years; and so of the 4th and\n5th. They will be sure to be brought in at their respective periods of\nredemption.\n\nMake it a high offence to receive or pass within this State a note of\nany other.\n\nThere is little doubt that our banks will agree readily to this operation;\nif they refuse, declare their charters forfeited by their former\nirregularities, and give summary process against them for the suspended\nnotes.\n\nThe Bank of the United States will probably concur also; if not, shut\ntheir doors and join the other States in respectful, but firm applications\nto Congress, to concur in constituting a tribunal (a special convention,\n_e. g._) for settling amicably the question of their right to institute\na bank, and that also of the States to do the same.\n\nA stay-law for the suspension of executions, and their discharge at five\nannual instalments, should be accommodated to these measures.\n\nInterdict forever, to both the State and national governments, the power\nof establishing any paper bank; for without this interdiction, we shall\nhave the same ebbs and flows of medium, and the same revolutions of\nproperty to go through every twenty or thirty years.\n\nIn this way the value of property, keeping pace nearly with the sum of\ncirculating medium, will descend gradually to its proper level, at the\nrate of about \u2155 every year, the sacrifices of what shall be sold for\npayment of the first instalments of debts will be moderate, and time will\nbe given for economy and industry to come in aid of those subsequent.\nCertainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of\nprivate individuals to regulate, according to their own interests, the\nquantum of circulating medium for the nation, to inflate, by deluges of\npaper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property\nat 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which\nmight endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been\ndone, and will be done, unless stayed by the protecting hand of the\nlegislature. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of\nthis ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require\nthat they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder\nand spoliation desolate the country. It is believed that Harpies are\nalready hoarding their money to commence these scenes on the separation\nof the legislature; and we know that lands have been already sold under\nthe hammer for less than a year's rent.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 10, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of November\nthe 23d. The banks, bankrupt law, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are\nnothing. These are occurrences which, like waves in a storm, will pass\nunder the ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose\nthe Missouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows. From the\nbattle of Bunker's Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous\na question. It even damps the joy with which I hear of your high health,\nand welcomes to me the consequences of my want of it. I thank God that\nI shall not live to witness its issue. _Sed h\u00e6c hactenus._\n\nI have been amusing myself latterly with reading the voluminous letters\nof Cicero. They certainly breathe the purest effusions of an exalted\npatriot, while the parricide C\u00e6sar is lost in odious contrast. When the\nenthusiasm, however, kindled by Cicero's pen and principles, subsides\ninto cool reflection, I ask myself, what was that government which the\nvirtues of Cicero were so zealous to restore, and the ambition of C\u00e6sar\nto subvert? And if C\u00e6sar had been as virtuous as he was daring and\nsagacious, what could he, even in the plenitude of his usurped power,\nhave done to lead his fellow citizens into good government? I do not\nsay to _restore it_, because they never had it, from the rape of the\nSabines to the ravages of the C\u00e6sars. If their people indeed had been,\nlike ourselves, enlightened, peaceable, and really free, the answer\nwould be obvious. \"Restore independence to all your foreign conquests,\nrelieve Italy from the government of the rabble of Rome, consult it as\na nation entitled to self-government, and do its will.\" But steeped in\ncorruption, vice and venality, as the whole nation was, (and nobody had\ndone more than C\u00e6sar to corrupt it,) what could even Cicero, Cato, Brutus\nhave done, had it been referred to them to establish a good government\nfor their country? They had no ideas of government themselves, but of\ntheir degenerate Senate, nor the people of liberty, but of the factious\nopposition of their Tribunes. They had afterwards their Tituses, their\nTrajans and Antoninuses, who had the will to make them happy, and the\npower to mould their government into a good and permanent form. But\nit would seem as if they could not see their way clearly to do it. No\ngovernment can continue good, but under the control of the people; and\ntheir people were so demoralized and depraved, as to be incapable of\nexercising a wholesome control. Their reformation then was to be taken\nup _ab incunabulis_. Their minds were to be informed by education what is\nright and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue, and deterred\nfrom those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed,\nbut irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide,\nand to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after\nanother, in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary\nto render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good\ngovernment. But this would have been an operation of a generation or\ntwo, at least, within which period would have succeeded many Neros and\nCommoduses, who would have quashed the whole process. I confess then, I\ncan neither see what Cicero, Cato, and Brutus, united and uncontrolled,\ncould have devised to lead their people into good government, nor how\nthis enigma can be solved, nor how further shown why it has been the\nfate of that delightful country never to have known, to this day, and\nthrough a course of five and twenty hundred years, the history of which\nwe possess, one single day of free and rational government. Your intimacy\nwith their history, ancient, middle and modern, your familiarity with\nthe improvements in the science of government at this time, will enable\nyou, if any body, to go back with our principles and opinions to the\ntimes of Cicero, Cato and Brutus, and tell us by what process these great\nand virtuous men could have led so unenlightened and vitiated a people\ninto freedom and good government, _et eris mihi magnus Apollo. Cura ut\nvaleas, et tibi persuadeas carissimum te mihi esse._\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n MONTEZILLO, December 21, 1819.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I must answer your great question of the 10th in the words of\nDalembert to his correspondent, who asked him what is matter--\"_Je vous\navoue je ne s\u00e7ais rien_.\" In some part of my life I record a great work\nof a Scotchman on the court of Augustus, in which, with much learning,\nhard study, and fatiguing labor, he undertook to prove that had Brutus\nand Cassius been conqueror, they would have restored virtue and liberty\nto Rome.\n\n_Mais je n'en crois rien._ Have you ever found in history one single\nexample of a nation, thoroughly corrupted, that was afterwards restored\nto virtue, and without virtue there can be no political liberty.\n\nIf I were a Calvinist, I might pray that God by a miracle of divine grace\nwould instantaneously convert a whole contaminated nation from turpitude\nto purity; but even in this I should be inconsistent, for the fatalism\nof Mahometanism, Materialists, Atheists, Pantheists, and Calvinists,\nand church of England articles, appear to me to render all prayer futile\nand absurd. The French and the Dutch, in our day, have attempted reforms\nand revolutions. We know the results, and I fear the English reformers\nwill have no better success.\n\nWill you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of\ntemperance and industry. Will you tell me how to prevent riches from\nproducing luxury. Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing\neffeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? When you will\nanswer me these questions, I hope I may venture to answer yours; yet all\nthese ought not to discourage us from exertion, for with my friend Jeb,\nI believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost, and all good men ought\nto struggle both by their council and example.\n\nThe Missouri question, I hope, will follow the other waves under the\nship, and do no harm. I know it is high treason to express a doubt\nof the perpetual duration of our vast American empire, and our free\ninstitution; and I say as devoutly as father Paul, _estor perpetua_,\nbut I am sometimes Cassandra enough to dream that another Hamilton, and\nanother Burr, might rend this mighty fabric in twain, or perhaps into\na leash; and a few more choice spirits of the same stamp, might produce\nas many nations in North America as there are in Europe.\n\nTo return to the Romans. I never could discover that they possessed\nmuch virtue, or real liberty. Their Patricians were in general griping\nusurers, and tyrannical creditors in all ages. Pride, strength, and\ncourage, were all the virtues that composed their national characters; a\nfew of their nobles effecting simplicity, frugality, and piety, perhaps\nreally possessing them, acquired popularity amongst the plebeians, and\nextended the power and dominions of the republic, and advanced in glory\ntill riches and luxury come in, sat like an incubus on the Republic,\n_victam que ulcissitur orbem_.\n\nOur winter sets in a fortnight earlier than usual, and is pretty severe.\nI hope you have fairer skies, and milder air. Wishing your health may\nlast as long as your life, and your life as long as you desire it, I\nam, dear Sir, respectfully and affectionately,\n\n\nTO H. NELSON, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 12, 1820.\n\nI thank you, dear Sir, for the information in your favor of the 4th\ninstant, of the settlement, _for the present_, of the Missouri question.\nI am so completely withdrawn from all attention to public matters, that\nnothing less could arouse me than the definition of a geographical line,\nwhich on an abstract principle is to become the line of separation of\nthese States, and to render desperate the hope that man can ever enjoy\nthe two blessings of peace and self-government. The question sleeps for\nthe present, but is not dead. This State is in a condition of unparalleled\ndistress. The sudden reduction of the circulating medium from a plethory\nto all but annihilation is producing an entire revolution of fortune.\nIn other places I have known lands sold by the sheriff for one year's\nrent; beyond the mountain we hear of good slaves selling for one hundred\ndollars, good horses for five dollars, and the sheriffs generally\nthe purchasers. Our produce is now selling at market for one-third\nof its price, before this commercial catastrophe, say flour at three\nand a quarter and three and a half dollars the barrel. We should have\nless right to expect relief from our legislators if they had been the\nestablishers of the unwise system of banks. A remedy to a certain degree\nwas practicable, that of reducing the quantum of circulation gradually\nto a level with that of the countries with which we have commerce, and\nan eternal abjuration of paper. But they have adjourned without doing\nanything. I fear local insurrections against these horrible sacrifices\nof property. In every condition of trouble or tranquillity be assured\nof my constant esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO MR. ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 14, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--A continuation of poor health makes me an irregular\ncorrespondent. I am, therefore, your debtor for the two letters of\nJanuary 20th and February 21st. It was after you left Europe that Dugald\nStuart, concerning whom you inquire, and Lord Dare, second son of the\nMarquis of Lansdown, came to Paris. They brought me a letter from Lord\nWycombe, whom you knew. I became immediately intimate with Stuart, calling\nmutually on each other and almost daily, during their stay at Paris,\nwhich was of some months. Lord Dare was a young man of imagination, with\noccasional flashes indicating deep penetration, but of much caprice,\nand little judgment. He has been long dead, and the family title is\nnow, I believe, in the third son, who has shown in Parliament talents\nof a superior order. Stuart is a great man, and among the most honest\nliving. I have heard nothing of his dying at top, as you suppose. Mr.\nTickner, however, can give you the best information on that subject,\nas he must have heard particularly of him when in Edinburgh, although\nI believe he did not see him. I have understood he was then in London\nsuperintending the publication of a new work. I consider him and Tracy as\nthe ablest metaphysicians living; by which I mean investigators of the\nthinking faculty of man. Stuart seems to have given its natural history\nfrom facts and observations; Tracy its modes of action and deduction,\nwhich he calls Logic, and Ideology; and Cabanis, in his Physique et\nMorale de l'Homme, has investigated anatomically, and most ingeniously,\nthe particular organs in the human structure which may most probably\nexercise that faculty. And they ask why may not the mode of action called\nthought, have been given to a material organ of peculiar structure, as\nthat of magnetism is to the needle, or of elasticity to the spring by\na particular manipulation of the steel. They observe that on ignition\nof the needle or spring, their magnetism and elasticity cease. So on\ndissolution of the material organ by death, its action of thought may\ncease also, and that nobody supposes that the magnetism or elasticity\nretire to hold a substantive and distinct existence. These were qualities\nonly of particular conformations of matter; change the conformation, and\nits qualities change also. Mr. Locke, you know, and other materialists,\nhave charged with blasphemy the spiritualists who have denied the Creator\nthe power of endowing certain forms of matter with the faculty of thought.\nThese, however, are speculations and subtleties in which, for my own\npart, I have little indulged myself. When I meet with a proposition\nbeyond finite comprehension, I abandon it as I do a weight which human\nstrength cannot lift, and I think ignorance, in these cases, is truly the\nsoftest pillow on which I can lay my head. Were it necessary, however, to\nform an opinion, I confess I should, with Mr. Locke, prefer swallowing\none incomprehensibility rather than two. It requires one effort only\nto admit the single incomprehensibility of matter endowed with thought,\nand two to believe, first that of an existence called spirit, of which\nwe have neither evidence nor idea, and then secondly how that spirit,\nwhich has neither extension nor solidity, can put material organs into\nmotion. Those are things which you and I may perhaps know ere long. We\nhave so lived as to fear neither horn of the dilemma. We have, willingly,\ndone injury to no man; and have done for our country the good which has\nfallen in our way, so far as commensurate with the faculties given us.\nThat we have not done more than we could, cannot be imputed to us as\na crime before any tribunal. I look, therefore, to the crisis, as I am\nsure you also do, as one \"_qui summum nec metuit diem nec optat_.\" In\nthe meantime be our last as cordial as were our first affections.\n\n\nTO THE HONORABLE MARK LANGDON HILL.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 5, 1820.\n\nSIR,--A near relation of my late friend Governor Langdon, needs no apology\nfor addressing a letter to me, that relationship giving sufficient title\nto all my respect. We were fellow laborers from the beginning of the first\nto the accomplishment of the second revolution in our government, of the\nsame zeal and the same sentiments, and I shall honor his memory while\nmemory remains to me. The letter you mention is proof of my friendship\nand unreserved confidence in him; it was written in warm times, and is\ntherefore too warmly expressed for the more reconciled temper of the\npresent day. I must pray you, therefore, not to let it get before the\npublic, lest it rekindle a flame which burnt too long and too fiercely\nagainst me. It was my lot to be placed at the head of the column which\nmade the first breach in the ramparts of federalism, and to be charged,\non that event, with the duty of changing the course of the government\nfrom what we deemed a monarchical, to its republican tack. This made me\nthe mark for every shaft which calumny and falsehood could point against\nme. I bore them with resignation, as one of the duties imposed on me\nby my post. But I assure you it was among the most painful duties from\nwhich I hoped to find relief in retirement. Tranquillity is the _summum\nbonum_ of old age and ill health, and nothing could so much disturb\nthis with me as to awaken angry feelings from the slumber in which I\nwish them ever to remain. I beseech you then, good Sir, in the name of\nmy departed friend, not to bring on me a contention which neither duty\nnor public good require me to encounter.\n\nI regret the circumstances which have deprived us of the pleasure of\nyour visit, but console myself with the French proverb that \"all is not\nlost which is deferred,\" and the hope that more favorable circumstances\nwill some day give us that gratification. I congratulate you on the\nsleep of the Missouri question. I wish I could say on its death, but\nof this I despair. The idea of a geographical line once suggested will\nbrood in the minds of all those who prefer the gratification of their\nungovernable passions to the peace and union of their country. If I do\nnot contemplate this subject with pleasure, I do sincerely that of the\nindependence of Maine, and the wise choice they have made of General King\nin the agency of their affairs, and I tender to yourself the assurance\nof my esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM SHORT.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 13, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request,\na copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr.\nRush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get\nhold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly\ncomplied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy.\nHe lent it to _his_ friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it\nappeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository\nis scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still\na secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.\n\nBut while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in\nits true and high light, as no impostor himself, but a great reformer\nof the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am\nwith him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of\nSpiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness\nof sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it, &c., &c.\nIt is the innocence of his character, the purity and sublimity of his\nmoral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the\napologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes,\nindeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may\nbe founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the\nsayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many\npassages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely\nbenevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity,\nso much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible\nthat such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I\nseparate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to him the former,\nand leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of\nhis disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great\nCoryph\u00e6us, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable\ninterpolations and falsifications of his doctrines, led me to try to\nsift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part\ncomposed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to\nus by man. The syllabus is therefore of _his_ doctrines, not _all_ of\n_mine_. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists,\nwith a mixture of approbation and dissent.\n\nI rejoice, with you, to see an encouraging spirit of internal improvement\nprevailing in the States. The opinion I have ever expressed of the\nadvantages of a western communication through the James river, I still\nentertain; and that the Cayuga is the most promising of the links of\ncommunication.\n\nThe history of our University you know so far. Seven of the ten pavilions\ndestined for the professors, and about thirty dormitories, will be\ncompleted this year, and three other, with six hotels for boarding, and\nseventy other dormitories, will be completed the next year, and the whole\nbe in readiness then to receive those who are to occupy them. But means\nto bring these into place, and to set the machine into motion, must come\nfrom the legislature. An opposition, in the meantime, has been got up.\nThat of our _alma mater_, William and Mary, is not of much weight. She\nmust descend into the secondary rank of academies of preparation for\nthe University. The serious enemies are the priests of the different\nreligious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is\nominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against\nthe appointment of Doctor Cooper, whom they charge as a monotheist in\nopposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are, in every other\npoint, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical theogony\nagainst those who believe there is one God only. The Presbyterian clergy\nare loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and\nambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now\nobtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin\nhemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor\nServetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which\nhas demonstrated that three are one and one is three, nor subscribe\nto that of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all\nheretics to Calvinistic Creed. They pant to re-establish, _by law_, that\nholy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into _public opinion_.\nWe have most unwisely committed to the hierophants of our particular\nsuperstition, the direction of public opinion, that lord of the universe.\nWe have given them stated and privileged days to collect and catechise\nus, opportunities of delivering their oracles to the people in mass,\nand of moulding their minds as wax in the hollow of their hands. But in\ndespite of their fulminations against endeavors to enlighten the general\nmind, to improve the reason of the people, and encourage them in the use\nof it, the liberality of this State will support this institution, and\ngive fair play to the cultivation of reason. Can you ever find a more\neligible occasion of visiting once more your native country, than that\nof accompanying Mr. Correa, and of seeing with him this beautiful and\nhopeful institution _in ovo_?\n\nAlthough I had laid down as a law to myself, never to write talk, or\neven think of politics, to know nothing of public affairs, and therefore\nhad ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri question aroused and\nfilled me with alarm. The old schism of federal and republican threatened\nnothing, because it existed in every State, and united them together\nby the fraternism of party. But the coincidence of a marked principle,\nmoral and political, with a geographical line, once conceived, I feared\nwould never more be obliterated from the mind; that it would be recurring\non every occasion and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such\nmutual and mortal hatred, as to render separation preferable to eternal\ndiscord. I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union\nwould be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at\nno great distance, and the direct consequence of this question; not by\nthe line which has been so confidently counted on; the laws of nature\ncontrol this; but by the Potomac, Ohio and Missouri, or more probably,\nthe Mississippi upwards to our northern boundary. My only comfort and\nconfidence is, that I shall not live to see this; and I envy not the\npresent generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers'\nsacrifices of life and fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment\nwhich was to decide ultimately whether man is capable of self-government?\nThis treason against human hope, will signalize their epoch in future\nhistory, as the counterpart of the medal of their predecessors.\n\nYou kindly inquire after my health. There is nothing in it immediately\nthreatening, but swelled legs, which are kept down mechanically, by\nbandages from the toe to the knee. These I have worn for six months. But\nthe tendency to turgidity may proceed from debility alone. I can walk\nthe round of my garden; not more. But I ride six or eight miles a day\nwithout fatigue. I shall set out for Poplar Forest within three or four\ndays; a journey from which my physician augurs much good.\n\nI salute you with constant and affectionate friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN HOLMES.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 22, 1820.\n\nI thank you, dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send\nme of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is\na perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read\nnewspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were\nin good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore\nfrom which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire\nbell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it\nat once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment.\nBut this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line,\ncoinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived\nand held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated;\nand every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with\nconscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more\nthan I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any _practicable_\nway. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a\nbagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a\ngeneral emancipation and _expatriation_ could be effected; and gradually,\nand with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have\nthe wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him\ngo. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of\none thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to\nanother, would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be\nso without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them\nindividually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment\nof their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of\ncoadjutors. An abstinence too, from this act of power, would remove the\njealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition\nof the different descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly\nis the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution\nhas taken from them and given to the General Government. Could Congress,\nfor example, say, that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen,\nor that they shall not emigrate into any other State?\n\nI regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice\nof themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government\nand happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and\nunworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be,\nthat I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh\nthe blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more\nlikely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before\nthey would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason\nagainst the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate\nof the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 14, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 3d is received, and always with welcome.\nThese texts of truth relieve me from the floating falsehoods of the public\npapers. I confess to you I am not sorry for the non-ratification of the\nSpanish treaty. Our assent to it has proved our desire to be on friendly\nterms with Spain; their dissent, the imbecility and malignity of their\ngovernment towards us, have placed them in the wrong in the eyes of the\nworld, and that is well; but to us the province of Techas will be the\nrichest State of our Union, without any exception. Its southern part will\nmake more sugar than we can consume, and the Red river, on its north, is\nthe most luxuriant country on earth. Florida, moreover, is ours. Every\nnation in Europe considers it such a right. We need not care for its\noccupation in time of peace, and, in war, the first cannon makes it ours\nwithout offence to anybody. The friendly advisements, too, of Russia\nand France, as well as the change of government in Spain, now ensured,\nrequire a further and respectful forbearance. While their request will\nrebut the plea of proscriptive possession, it will give us a right to\ntheir approbation when taken in the maturity of circumstances. I really\nthink, too, that neither the state of our finances, the condition of our\ncountry, nor the public opinion, urges us to precipitation into war.\nThe treaty has had the valuable effect of strengthening our title to\nthe Techas, because the cession of the Floridas in exchange for Techas\nimports an acknowledgment of our right to it. This province moreover,\nthe Floridas and possibly Cuba, will join us on the acknowledgment of\ntheir independence, a measure to which their new government will probably\naccede voluntarily. But why should I be saying all this to you, whose\nmind all the circumstances of this affair have had possession for years?\nI shall rejoice to see you here; and were I to live to see you here\nfinally, it would be a day of jubilee. But our days are all numbered,\nand mine are not many. God bless you and preserve you _muchos a\u00f1os_\n\n\nTO GENERAL TAYLOR.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 16, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--We regretted much your absence at the late meeting of the\nBoard of Visitors, but did not doubt it was occasioned by uncontrollable\ncircumstances. As the matters which came before us were of great\nimportance to the institution, I think it a duty to inform you of them.\n\nYou know the sanction of the legislature to our borrowing $60,000 on\nthe pledge of our annuity of $15,000. The Literary Board offered us\n$40,000 on that pledge, to be repaid at five instalments, commencing at\nthe end of the third year from the date of the loan, and interest to\nbe regularly paid in the meantime. We endeavored to obtain permission\nto draw for only $15,000 at first, and for $2,000 monthly afterwards,\nto avoid the payment of dead interest. This they declined, as bound\nthemselves to keep the whole of their capital always in a course of\nfructification. We then requested a postponement of the instalments to\nthe fourth instead of the third year, with an additional loan of the\nfurther sum of $20,000, authorized by the law. To the postponement they\nacceded, and we are assured they will to the further loan. To explain\nto them the urgency of this additional year's postponement, a paper was\nlaid before them of which I enclose you a copy, and on which you are now\nacting. Should the legislature not help us to the $93,600 there noted, the\nresult will be that at the end of the next year all the buildings will\nbe completed, (the library excepted,) and will then remain unoccupied\nfive years longer, until our funds shall be free for the engagements of\nprofessors. Should they, on the other hand, give this aid, our funds will\nbe free, at the beginning of the next year, and will enable us to take\nmeasures for procuring professors in the course of that summer, and to\nopen the University. We were all of opinion that we ought to complete the\nbuildings for the ten professors contemplated, as well as accommodations\nfor the students, before opening the institution; for were we to stop\nat any point short of the full establishment, and open partially, as\nour funds would thenceforward be absorbed by the professors' salaries,\nwe should never be able to advance a step further, nor to cover the\nwhole field of science contemplated by the law, and made the object of\nour care and duty. We thought it better, therefore, to risk a delay of\neight years for a perfect establishment, than to begin earlier and go on\nforever with a defective one; and we suppose it impossible that either\nthe legislature, or their constituents, should not consider an immediate\ncommencement as worth the sum necessary to procure it. You will observe\nthat in the estimate enclosed, no account is taken of our subscription\nmonies. They are, in fact, too uncertain in their collection to found\nany necessary contracts; and we thought it better therefore to reserve\nthem as a contingent fund, and a resource to cover miscalculations and\naccidents.\n\nAnother subject on this, as on former occasions, gave us embarrassment.\nYou may have heard of the hue and cry raised from the different pulpits\non our appointment of Dr. Cooper, whom they charge with Unitarianism\nas boldly as if they knew the fact, and as presumptuously as if it\nwere a crime, and one for which, like Servetus, he should be burned;\nand perhaps you may have seen the particular attack made on him in\nthe Evangelical magazine. For myself I was not disposed to regard the\ndenunciations of these satellites of religious inquisition; but our\ncolleagues, better judges of popular feeling, thought that they were not\nto be altogether neglected; and that it might be better to relieve Dr.\nCooper, ourselves and the institution from this crusade. I had received\na letter from him expressing his uneasiness, not only for himself, but\nlest this persecution should become embarrassing to the visitors, and\ninjurious to the institution; with an offer to resign, if we had the\nsame apprehensions. The Visitors, therefore, desired the committee of\nSuperintendence to place him at freedom on this subject, and to arrange\nwith him a suitable indemnification. I wrote accordingly in answer to his,\nand a meeting of trustees of the college at Columbia happening to take\nplace soon after his receipt of my letter, they resolved unanimously that\nit should be proposed to, and urged on their legislature, to establish\na professorship of Geology and Mineralogy, or a professorship of law,\nwith a salary of $1,000 a year to be given him, in addition to that of\nchemistry, which is $2,000 a year, and to purchase his collection of\nminerals; and they have no doubt of the legislature's compliance. On\nthe subject of indemnification, he is contented with the balance of the\n$1,500 we had before agreed to give him, and which he says will not more\nthan cover his actual losses of time and expense; he adds, \"it is right\nI should acknowledge the liberality of your board with thanks. I regret\nthe storm that has been raised on my account; for it has separated me\nfrom many fond hopes and wishes. Whatever my religious creed may be,\nand perhaps I do not exactly know it myself, it is pleasure to reflect\nthat my conduct has not brought, and is not likely to bring, discredit\nto my friends. Wherever I have been, it has been my good fortune to meet\nwith, or to make ardent and affectionate friends. I feel persuaded I\nshould have met with the same lot in Virginia had it been my chance to\nhave settled there, as I had hoped and expected, for I think my course\nof conduct is sufficiently habitual to count on its effects.\"\n\nI do sincerely lament that untoward circumstances have brought on us\nthe irreparable loss of this professor, whom I have looked to as the\ncorner-stone of our edifice. I know no one who could have aided us so\nmuch in forming the future regulations for our infant institution; and\nalthough we may perhaps obtain from Europe equivalents in science, they\ncan never replace the advantages of his experience, his knowledge of the\ncharacter, habits and manners of our country, his identification with\nits sentiments and principles, and high reputation he has obtained in\nit generally.\n\nIn the hope of meeting you at our fall visitation, and that you will do\nme the favor of making this your head quarters, and of coming the day\nbefore, at least, that we may prepare our business at ease, I tender\nyou the assurance of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM SHORT.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 4, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I owe you a letter for your favor of June the 29th, which was\nreceived in due time; and there being no subject of the day, of particular\ninterest, I will make this a supplement to mine of April the 13th. My\naim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions\nof his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of\nbeing an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced\nthe follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanisms which his biographers\nfather on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and\ntheorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter\nages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that\nhe was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his\nactions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in\nmy letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian.\nWhen Livy and Siculus, for example, tell us things which coincide with\nour experience of the order of nature, we credit them on their word,\nand place their narrations among the records of credible history. But\nwhen they tell us of calves speaking, of statues sweating blood, and\nother things against the course of nature, we reject these as fables\nnot belonging to history. In like manner, when an historian, speaking\nof a character well known and established on satisfactory testimony,\nimputes to it things incompatible with that character, we reject them\nwithout hesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better\nevidence. Had Plutarch informed us that C\u00e6sar and Cicero passed their\nwhole lives in religious exercises, and abstinence from the affairs\nof the world, we should reject what was so inconsistent with their\nestablished characters, still crediting what he relates in conformity\nwith our ideas of them. So again, the superlative wisdom of Socrates is\ntestified by all antiquity, and placed on ground not to be questioned.\nWhen, therefore, Plato puts into his mouth such paralogisms, such quibbles\non words, and sophisms as a school boy would be ashamed of, we conclude\nthey were the whimsies of Plato's own foggy brain, and acquit Socrates\nof puerilities so unlike his character. (Speaking of Plato, I will add,\nthat no writer, ancient or modern, has bewildered the world with more\n_ignus fatui_, than this renowned philosopher, in Ethics, in Politics,\nand Physics. In the latter, to specify a single example, compare his\nviews of the animal economy, in his Tim\u00e6us, with those of Mrs. Bryan in\nher Conversations on Chemistry, and weigh the science of the canonized\nphilosopher against the good sense of the unassuming lady. But Plato's\nvisions have furnished a basis for endless systems of mystical theology,\nand he is therefore all but adopted as a Christian saint. It is surely\ntime for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of\nnames so artificially magnified. But to return from this parenthesis.) I\nsay, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of\nthe character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter\nof two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance,\nof things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.\nIntermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being,\naphorisms, and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned\nby a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect\nof riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence\nand persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be\ninventions of the grovelling authors who relate them. They are far beyond\nthe powers of their feeble minds. They show that there was a character,\nthe subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all\nsuspicion of being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss\nin separating such materials, and ascribing each to its genuine author?\nThe difference is obvious to the eye and to the understanding, and we\nmay read as we run to each his part; and I will venture to affirm, that\nhe who, as I have done, will undertake to winnow this grain from the\nchaff, will find it not to require a moment's consideration. The parts\nfall asunder of themselves, as would those of an image of metal and clay.\n\nThere are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may,\nwith probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from\nthe circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation\nof some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That\nsect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific\ncharacter, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust. Jesus, taking\nfor his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom,\njustice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but\nin infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really\nworthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future\nstate of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly\ntaught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and\nprecision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries,\nand observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities\nwhich constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and\ninsignificance. The one instilled into his people the most anti-social\nspirit toward other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal\ncharity and benevolence. The office of reformer of the superstitions of a\nnation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of\nreason and religion; and a step to right or left might place him within\nthe grasp of the priests of the superstition, a blood-thirsty race, as\ncruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family\nGod of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.\nThey were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of\nthe law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions,\nby sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the\nprophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as\nsufficient, _ad homines_, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose\nhimself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been\nconvinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.\nBut that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above,\nis very possible. The whole religion of the Jew, inculcated on him from\nhis infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes\nof the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious\ncode, as special communications of the Deity; and as it could not but\nhappen that, in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up\nto which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the\naid of allegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they\nhave not only preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent\ntimes, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who\nhave schismatised from them. Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and\npure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not\nbeen taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own\nfine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief carried,\ntherefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that\nhimself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian D\u00e6mon. And how\nmany of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations,\nwhile perfectly sane on all other subjects. Excusing, therefore, on these\nconsiderations, those passages in the gospels which seem to bear marks\nof weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone is consistent with\nthe great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs,\nand to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities. I\nthink myself authorized to conclude the purity and distinction of his\ncharacter, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix\nupon him; and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is\ngranted in all other historical works.\n\nMr. Correa is here, on his farewell visit to us. He has been much pleased\nwith the plan and progress of our University, and has given some valuable\nhints to its botanical branch. He goes to do, I hope, much good in his\nnew country; the public instruction there, as I understand, being within\nthe department destined for him. He is not without dissatisfaction,\nand reasonable dissatisfaction too, with the piracies of Baltimore;\nbut his justice and friendly dispositions will, I am sure, distinguish\nbetween the iniquities of a few plunderers, and the sound principles\nof our country at large, and of our government especially. From many\nconversations with him, I hope he sees, and will promote in his new\nsituation, the advantages of a cordial fraternization among all the\nAmerican nations, and the importance of their coalescing in an American\nsystem of policy, totally independent of and unconnected with that of\nEurope. The day is not distant, when we may formally require a meridian\nof partition through the ocean which separates the two hemispheres, on\nthe hither side of which no European gun shall ever be heard, nor an\nAmerican on the other; and when, during the rage of the eternal wars of\nEurope, the lion and the lamb, within our regions, shall lie down together\nin peace. The excess of population in Europe, and want of room, render\nwar, in their opinion, necessary to keep down that excess of numbers.\nHere, room is abundant, population scanty, and peace the necessary means\nfor producing men, to whom the redundant soil is offering the means of\nlife and happiness. The principles of society there and here, then, are\nradically different, and I hope no American patriot will ever lose sight\nof the essential policy of interdicting in the seas and territories of\nboth Americas, the ferocious and sanguinary contests of Europe. I wish\nto see this coalition begun. I am earnest for an agreement with the\nmaritime powers of Europe, assigning them the task of keeping down the\npiracies of their seas and the cannibalisms of the African coasts, and\nto us, the suppression of the same enormities within our seas; and for\nthis purpose, I should rejoice to see the fleets of Brazil and the United\nStates riding together as brethren of the same family, and pursuing the\nsame object. And indeed it would be of happy augury to begin at once\nthis concert of action here, on the invitation of either to the other\ngovernment, while the way might be preparing for withdrawing our cruisers\nfrom Europe, and preventing naval collisions there which daily endanger\nour peace.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAccept assurances of the sincerity of my friendship and respect for you.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR COOPER.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 14, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Yours of the 24th ult. was received in due time, and I shall\nrejoice indeed if Mr. Elliot and Mr. Nulty are joined to you in the\ninstitution at Columbia, which now becomes of immediate interest to me.\nMr. Stack has given notice to his first class that he shall dismiss them\non the 10th of the next month, and his mathematical assistant also at\nthe same time, being determined to take only small boys in future. My\ngrandson, Eppes, is of the first class; and I have proposed to his father\nto send him to Columbia, rather than anywhere northwardly. I am obliged,\ntherefore, to ask of you by what day he ought to be there, so as to be\nat the commencement of what they call a session, and to be so good as to\ndo this by the first mail, as I shall set out to Bedford within about\na fortnight. He is so far advanced in Greek and Latin that he will be\nable to pursue them by himself hereafter; and being between eighteen and\nnineteen years of age he has no time to lose. I propose that he shall\ncommence immediately with the mathematics and natural philosophy, to be\nfollowed by astronomy, chemistry, mineralogy, botany, natural history. It\nwould be time lost for him to attend professors of ethics, metaphysics,\nlogic, &c. The first of these may be as well acquired in the closet as\nfrom living lectures; and supposing the two last to mean the _science\nof mind_, the simple reading of Locke, Tracy, and Stewart, will give\nhim as much in that branch as is _real_ science. A relation of his (Mr.\nBaker) and classmate will go with him.\n\nI hope and believe you are mistaken in supposing the reign of fanaticism\nto be on the advance. I think it certainly declining. It was first excited\nartificially by the sovereigns of Europe as an engine of opposition to\nBonaparte and to France. It rose to a great height there, and became\nindeed a powerful engine of loyalism, and of support to their governments.\nBut that loyalism is giving way to very different dispositions, and\nits prompter fanaticism, is vanishing with it. In the meantime it had\nbeen wafted across the Atlantic, and chiefly from England, with their\nother fashions, but it is here also on the wane. The ambitious sect of\nPresbyterians indeed, the Loyalists of our country, spare no pains to\nkeep it up. But their views of ascendency over all other sects in the\nUnited States seem to excite alarm in all, and to unite them as against\na common and threatening enemy. And although the Unitarianism they\nimpute to you is heterodoxy with all of them, I suspect the other sects\nwill admit it to their alliance in order to strengthen the phalanx of\nopposition against the enterprises of their more aspiring antagonists.\nAlthough spiritualism is most prevalent with all these sects, yet with\nnone of them, I presume, is materialism declared heretical. Mr. Locke,\non whose authority they often plume themselves, openly maintained the\nmaterialism of the soul; and charged with blasphemy those who denied\nthat it was in the power of an Almighty Creator to endow with the faculty\nof thought any composition of matter he might think fit. The fathers of\nthe church of the three first centuries generally, if not universally,\nwere materialists, extending it even to the Creator himself; nor indeed\ndo I know exactly[5] in what age of the christian church the heresy of\nspiritualism was introduced. Huet, in his commentaries on Origen,[6]\nsays, \"Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Origenem, reapse\ncorporalis est, sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.\"[7]\nSt. Macari,[8] as speaking of angels says, \"quam vis enim subtilia sint,\ntamen in substantia, forma, et figura, secundum tenuitatem natur\u00e6 eorum\ncorpora sunt tenuia, quemadmodum et hoc corpus in substantia sua crassum\net solidum est.\"[9] St. Justin martyr says expressly \"\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\"\n\nTertullian's words are, \"quid enim Deus nisi corpus?\" and again, \"quis\nautem negabit Deum esse corpus? et si deus spiritus, spiritus etiam\ncorpus est sui generis, in su\u00e2 effigie,\" and that the soul is matter\nhe adduces the following tangible proof: \"in ipso ultimo voluptatis\naestu, quo genitale virus expellitur, nonne aliquid de anim\u00e2 sentimus\nexire?\"[10] The holy father thus asserting, and, as it would seem, from\nhis own feelings, that the sperm infused into the female matrix deposits\nthere the matter and germ of both soul and body, conjunctim, of the new\nf\u0153tus. Although I do not pretend to be familiar with these fathers, and\ngive the preceding quotations at second hand, yet I learn from authors\nwhom I respect, that not only those I have named, but St. Augustin,[11]\nSt. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras, and others, concurred in the\nmateriality of the soul. Our modern doctors would hardly venture or wish\nto condemn their fathers as heretics, the main pillars of their fabric\nresting on their shoulders.\n\nIn the consultations of the visitors of the university on the subject of\nreleasing you from your engagement with us, although one or two members\nseemed alarmed at this cry of \"fire\" from the Presbyterian pulpits,\nyet the real ground of our decision was that our funds were in fact\nhypotheticated for five or six years to redeem the loan we had reluctantly\nmade; and although we hoped and trusted that the ensuing legislature\nwould remit the debt and liberate our funds, yet it was not just, on\nthis possibility, to stand in the way of your looking out for a more\ncertain provision. The completing all our buildings for professors and\nstudents by the autumn of the ensuing year, is now secured by sufficient\ncontracts, and our confidence is most strong that neither the State nor\ntheir legislature will bear to see those buildings shut up for five or\nsix years, when they have the money in hand, and actually appropriated\nto the object of education, which would open their doors at once for\nthe reception of their sons, now waiting and calling aloud for that\ninstitution. The legislature meets on the 1st Monday of December, and\nbefore Christmas we shall know what are their intentions. If such as we\nexpect, we shall then immediately take measures to engage our professors\nand bring them into place the ensuing autumn or early winter. My hope is\nthat you will be able and willing to keep yourself uncommitted, to take\nyour place among them about that time; and I can assure you there is\nnot a voice among us which will not be cordially given for it. I think,\ntoo, I may add, that if the Presbyterian opposition should not die by\nthat time, it will be directed at once against the whole institution,\nand not amuse itself with nibbling at a single object. It did that only\nbecause there was no other, and they might think it politic to mask\ntheir designs on the body of the fortress, under the ---- of a battery\nagainst a single bastion. I will not despair then of the avail of your\nservices in an establishment which I contemplate as the future bulwark\nof the human mind in this hemisphere. God bless you and preserve you\n_multos annos_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [5] I believe by Athenasius and the council of Nicea.\n\n [6] Ocellus de d'Argens, p. 97.\n\n [7] Enfield, vi. 3.\n\n [8] Ib. 105.\n\n [9] Tim\u00e6us, 17. Enfield, vi. 3.\n\n [10] Hist. des Saints, 2 c. 4 p. 212, 215.\n\n [11] Ocellus, 90.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 15, 1820.\n\nI am a great defaulter, my dear Sir, in our correspondence, but prostrate\nhealth rarely permits me to write; and when it does, matters of business\nimperiously press their claims. I am getting better however, slowly,\nswelled legs being now the only serious symptom, and these, I believe,\nproceed from extreme debility. I can walk but little; but I ride six\nor eight miles a day without fatigue; and within a few days, I shall\nendeavor to visit my other home, after a twelvemonth's absence from it.\nOur University, four miles distant, gives me frequent exercise, and the\noftener, as I direct its architecture. Its plan is unique, and it is\nbecoming an object of curiosity for the traveller. I have lately had\nan opportunity of reading a critique on this institution in your North\nAmerican Review of January last, having been not without anxiety to see\nwhat that able work would say of us; and I was relieved on finding in it\nmuch coincidence of opinion, and even where criticisms were indulged,\nI found they would have been obviated had the developments of our plan\nbeen fuller. But these were restrained by the character of the paper\nreviewed, being merely a report of outlines, not a detailed treatise, and\naddressed to a legislative body, not to a learned academy. For example,\nas an inducement to introduce the Anglo-Saxon into our plan, it was said\nthat it would reward amply the _few weeks_ of attention which alone would\nbe requisite for its attainment; leaving both term and degree under an\nindefinite expression, because I know that not much time is necessary\nto attain it to an useful degree, sufficient to give such instruction in\nthe etymologies of our language as may satisfy ordinary students, while\nmore time would be requisite for those who should propose to attain\na critical knowledge of it. In a letter which I had occasion to write\nto Mr. Crofts, who sent you, I believe, as well as myself, a copy of\nhis treatise on the English and German languages, as preliminary to an\netymological dictionary he meditated, I went into explanations with him\nof an easy process for simplifying the study of the Anglo-Saxon, and\nlessening the terrors and difficulties presented by its rude alphabet,\nand unformed orthography. But this is a subject beyond the bounds of a\nletter, as it was beyond the bounds of a report to the legislature. Mr.\nCrofts died, I believe, before any progress was made in the work he had\nprojected.\n\nThe reviewer expresses doubt, rather than decision, on our placing\nmilitary and naval architecture in the department of pure mathematics.\nMilitary architecture embraces fortification and fieldworks, which,\nwith their bastions, curtains, hornworks, redoubts, &c., are based on a\ntechnical combination of lines and angles. These are adapted to offence\nand defence, with and against the effects of bombs, balls, escalades,\n&c. But lines and angles make the sum of elementary geometry, a branch\nof pure mathematics; and the direction of the bombs, balls, and other\nprojectiles, the necessary appendages of military works, although no\npart of their architecture, belong to the conic sections, a branch of\ntranscendental geometry. Diderot and D'Alembert, therefore, in their\n_Arbor scienti\u00e6_, have placed military architecture in the department\nof elementary geometry. Naval architecture teaches the best form and\nconstruction of vessels; for which best form it has recourse to the\nquestion of the solid of least resistance; a problem of transcendental\ngeometry. And its appurtenant projectiles belong to the same branch, as\nin the preceding case. It is true, that so far as respects the action\nof the water on the rudder and oars, and of the wind on the sails, it\nmay be placed in the department of mechanics, as Diderot and D'Alembert\nhave done; but belonging quite as much to geometry, and allied in its\nmilitary character to military architecture, it simplified our plan\nto place both under the same head. These views are so obvious, that\nI am sure they would have required but a second thought, to reconcile\nthe reviewer to their _location_ under the head of pure mathematics.\nFor this word _location_, see Bailey, Johnson, Sheridan, Walker, &c.\nBut if dictionaries are to be the arbiters of language, in which of\nthem shall we find _neologism_. No matter. It is a good word, well\nsounding, obvious, and expresses an idea, which would otherwise require\ncircumlocution. The reviewer was justifiable, therefore, in using it;\nalthough he noted at the same time, as unauthoritative, _centrality_,\n_grade_, _sparse_; all which have been long used in common speech and\nwriting. I am a friend to _neology_. It is the only way to give to a\nlanguage copiousness and euphony. Without it we should still be held\nto the vocabulary of Alfred or of Ulphilas; and held to their state of\nscience also: for I am sure they had no words which could have conveyed\nthe ideas of oxygen, cotyledons, zoophytes, magnetism, electricity,\nhyaline, and thousands of others expressing ideas not then existing,\nnor of possible communication in the state of their language. What a\nlanguage has the French become since the date of their revolution, by\nthe free introduction of new words! The most copious and eloquent in\nthe living world; and equal to the Greek, had not that been regularly\nmodifiable almost _ad infinitum_. Their rule was, that whenever their\nlanguage furnished or adopted a root, all its branches, in every part of\nspeech, were legitimated by giving them their appropriate terminations.\n\u0391\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b7, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03b6\u03c9, \u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03c2. And this should be the law of every language. Thus,\nhaving adopted the adjective _fraternal_, it is a root which should\nlegitimate _fraternity_, _fraternation_, _fraternisation_, _fraternism_,\n_to fraternate_, _fraternise_, _fraternally_. And give the word\n_neologism_ to our language, as a root, and it should give us its fellow\nsubstantives, _neology_, _neologist_, _neologisation_; its adjectives,\n_neologous_, _neological_, _neologistical_; its verb, _neologise_; and\nadverb, _neologically_. Dictionaries are but the depositories of words\nalready legitimated by usage. Society is the workshop in which new ones\nare elaborated. When an individual uses a new word, if ill formed, it is\nrejected in society; if well formed, adopted, and after due time, laid\nup in the depository of dictionaries. And if, in this process of sound\nneologisation, our trans-Atlantic brethren shall not choose to accompany\nus, we may furnish, after the Ionians, a second example of a colonial\ndialect improving on its primitive.\n\nBut enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May the\n12th, on matter, spirit, motion, &c. Its crowd of scepticisms kept me from\nsleep. I read it, and laid it down; read it, and laid it down, again and\nagain; and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to\nmy habitual anodyne, \"I feel, therefore I exist.\" I feel bodies which are\nnot myself: there are other existences then. I call them _matter_. I feel\nthem changing place. This gives me _motion_. Where there is an absence\nof matter, I call it _void_, or _nothing_, or _immaterial space_. On the\nbasis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all\nthe certainties we can have or need. I can conceive _thought_ to be an\naction of a particular organization of matter, formed for that purpose\nby its creator, as well as that _attraction_ is an action of matter, or\n_magnetism_ of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power\nof endowing matter with the mode of action called _thinking_, shall show\nhow he could endow the sun with the mode of action called _attraction_,\nwhich reins the planets in the track of their orbits, or how an absence\nof matter can have a will, and by that will put matter into motion, then\nthe Materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which\nmatter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis\nof sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of _immaterial_ existences,\nis to talk of _nothings_. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are\nimmaterial, is to say, they are _nothings_, or that there is no God, no\nangels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported\nin my creed of materialism by the Lockes, the Tracys, and the Stewarts.\nAt what age[12] of the Christian church this heresy of _immaterialism_,\nor masked atheism, crept in, I do not exactly know. But a heresy it\ncertainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us, indeed, that \"God\nis a spirit,\" but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it\nis not _matter_. And the ancient fathers generally, of the three first\ncenturies, held it to be matter, light and thin indeed, an etherial\ngas; but still matter. Origen says, \"Deus se ipse corporalis est; sed\ngraviorum tantum corporum ratione, incorporeus.\" Tertullian, \"quid enim\ndeus nisi corpus?\" And again, \"quis negabit deum esse corpus? Etsi deus\nspiritus, spiritus etiam corpus est, sui generis in sua effigie.\" St.\nJustin Martyr, \"\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c7 '\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd'--\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\n\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\" And St. Macarius, speaking of angels, says,\n\"quamvis enim subtilia sint, tamen in substantia, forma et figur\u00e2,\nsecundum tenuitatem natur\u00e6 eorum, corpora sunt tenuia.\" And St. Austin,\nSt. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras and others, with whose writings\nI pretend not a familiarity, are said by those who are better acquainted\nwith them, to deliver the same doctrine. (Enfield x. 3, 1.) Turn to your\nOcellus d'Argens, 97, 105, and to his Tim\u00e6us 17, for these quotations.\nIn England, these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29 Car.\n2, when the writ _de h\u00e6retico comburendo_ was abolished; and here until\nthe Revolution, that statute not having extended to us. All heresies\nbeing now done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists,\ndiffering from the material atheist only in their belief, that \"nothing\nmade something,\" and from the material deist, who believes that matter\nalone can operate on matter.\n\nRejecting all organs of information, therefore, but my senses, I rid\nmyself of the pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations\nhyperphysical and antiphysical, so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind.\nA single sense may indeed be sometimes deceived, but rarely; and never\nall our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning. They evidence\nrealities, and there are enough of these for all the purposes of life,\nwithout plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am\nsatisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without\ntormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of\nwhich I have no evidence. I am sure that I really know many, many things,\nand none more surely than that I love you with all my heart, and pray\nfor the continuance of your life until you shall be tired of it yourself.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [12] That of Athanasius and the Council of Nic\u00e6a, anno.\n 324.\n\n\nTO MR. JARVIS.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 28, 1820.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for the copy of your Republican which you have been so\nkind as to send me, and I should have acknowledged it sooner but that I\nam just returned home after a long absence. I have not yet had time to\nread it seriously, but in looking over it cursorily I see much in it to\napprove, and shall be glad if it shall lead our youth to the practice\nof thinking on such subjects and for themselves. That it will have this\ntendency may be expected, and for that reason I feel an urgency to note\nwhat I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion\nis strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in pages 84 and 148,\nto consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional\nquestions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place\nus under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as\nother men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions\nfor party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is\n\"_boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem_,\" and their power the more\ndangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the\nother functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has\nerected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided,\nwith the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.\nIt has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign\nwithin themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census,\nfor paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing\na militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the constitution, or if\nthey fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to\nthem; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint\nother civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the\njudges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to\nno executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their\nofficial duties, any more than the president or legislature may issue\norders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and\nunaware, as it should seem, of the control of our constitution in this\nparticular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to\ncommand executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties; but\nthe constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent,\nrestrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the\nexecutive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges\ncertainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions,\nbecause the laws of _meum_ and _tuum_ and of criminal action, forming the\ngreat mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department.\nWhen the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally,\nthey are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The\nexemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no\nsafe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people\nthemselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise\ntheir control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take\nit from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the\ntrue corrective of abuses of constitutional power. Pardon me, Sir, for\nthis difference of opinion. My personal interest in such questions is\nentirely extinct, but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance\nof our government on its pure principles; if the three powers maintain\ntheir mutual independence on each other it may last long, but not so\nif either can assume the authorities of the other. I ask your candid\nre-consideration of this subject, and am sufficiently sure you will form\na candid conclusion. Accept the assurance of my great respect.\n\n\nTO MR PINCKNEY.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 30, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--An absence of some time from home has occasioned me to be thus\nlate in acknowledging the receipt of your favor of the 6th, and I see\nin it with pleasure evidences of your continued health and application\nto business. It is now, I believe, about twenty years since I had the\npleasure of seeing you, and we are apt, in such cases, to lose sight of\ntime, and to conceive that our friends remain stationary at the same\npoint of health and vigor as when we last saw them. So I perceive by\nyour letter you think with respect to myself, but twenty years added\nto fifty-seven make quite a different man. To threescore and seventeen\nadd two years of prostrate health, and you have the old, infirm, and\nnerveless body I now am, unable to write but with pain, and unwilling to\nthink without necessity. In this state I leave the world and its affairs\nto the young and energetic, and resign myself to their care, of whom I\nhave endeavored to take care when young. I read but one newspaper and\nthat of my own State, and more for its advertisements than its news. I\nhave not read a speech in Congress for some years. I have heard, indeed,\nof the questions of the tariff and Missouri, and formed _prim\u00e2 facie_\nopinions on them, but without investigation. As to the tariff, I should\nsay put down all banks, admit none but a _metallic circulation_, that\nwill take its proper level with the like circulation in other countries,\nand then our manufacturers may work in fair competition with those of\nother countries, and the import duties which the government may lay for\nthe purposes of revenue will so far place them above equal competition.\nThe Missouri question is a mere party trick. The leaders of federalism,\ndefeated in their schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans to the\nprinciple of monarchism, a principle of personal not of local division,\nhave changed their tack, and thrown out another barrel to the whale. They\nare taking advantage of the virtuous feelings of the people to effect a\ndivision of parties by a geographical line; they expect that this will\nensure them, on local principles, the majority they could never obtain on\nprinciples of federalism; but they are still putting their shoulder to the\nwrong wheel; they are wasting Jeremiads on the miseries of slavery, as if\nwe were advocates for it. Sincerity in their declamations should direct\ntheir efforts to the true point of difficulty, and unite their counsels\nwith ours in devising some reasonable and practicable plan of getting\nrid of it. Some of these leaders, if they could attain the power, their\nambition would rather use it to keep the Union together, but others have\never had in view its separation. If they push it to that, they will find\nthe line of separation very different from their 36\u00b0 of latitude, and\nas manufacturing and navigating States, they will have quarrelled with\ntheir bread and butter, and I fear not that after a little trial they\nwill think better of it, and return to the embraces of their natural and\nbest friends. But this scheme of party I leave to those who are to live\nunder its consequences. We who have gone before have performed an honest\nduty, by putting in the power of our successors a state of happiness\nwhich no nation ever before had within their choice. If that choice is\nto throw it away, the dead will have neither the power nor the right to\ncontrol them. I must hope, nevertheless, that the mass of our honest and\nwell-meaning brethren of the other States, will discover the use which\ndesigning leaders are making of their best feelings, and will see the\nprecipice to which they are lead, before they take the fatal leap. God\ngrant it, and to you health and happiness.\n\n\nTO RICHARD RUSH, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 20, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--In your favor of May 3d, which I have now to acknowledge, you\nso kindly proffered your attentions to any little matters I might have\non that side of the water, that I take the liberty of availing myself\nof this proof of your goodness so far as to request you to put the\nenclosed catalogue in the hands of some _honest_ bookseller of London,\nwho will procure and forward the books to me, with care and good faith.\nThey should be packed in a cheap trunk, and not put on ship-board until\nApril, as they would be liable to damage on a winter passage. I ask an\n_honest_ correspondent in that line, because, when we begin to import\nfor the library of our Universary, we shall need one worthy of entire\nconfidence.\n\nI send this letter open to my correspondent in Richmond, Captain Bernard\nPeyton, with a request that he will put into it a bill of exchange on\nLondon of \u00a340 sterling, which of course, therefore, I cannot describe\nto you by naming drawer and drawee. He will also forward, by other\nconveyance, the duplicate and triplicate as usual. This sum would more\nthan cover the cost of the books written for, according to their prices\nstated in printed catalogues; but as books have risen with other things\nin price, I have enlarged the printed amount by about 15 per cent. to\ncover any rise. Still, should it be insufficient, the bookseller is\nrequested to dock the catalogue to the amount of the remittance.\n\nI have no news to give you; for I have none but from the newspapers, and\nbelieving little of that myself, it would be an unworthy present to my\nfriends. But the important news lies now on your side of the Atlantic.\nEngland, in throes from a trifle, as it would seem, but that trifle\nthe symptom of an irremediable disease proceeding from a long course of\nexhaustion by efforts and burthens beyond her natural strength; France\nagonizing between royalists and constitutionalists; the other States\nof Europe pressing on to revolution and the rights of man, and the\ncolossal powers of Russia and Austria marshalled against them. These\nare more than specks of hurricane in the horizon of the world. You,\nwho are young, may live to see its issue; the beginning only is for my\ntime. Nor is our side of the water entirely untroubled, the boisterous\nsea of liberty is never without a wave. A hideous evil, the magnitude\nof which is seen, and at a distance only, by the one party, and more\nsorely felt and sincerely deplored by the other, from the difficulty\nof the cure, divides us at this moment too angrily. The attempt by one\nparty to prohibit willing States from sharing the evil, is thought by\nthe other to render desperate, by accumulation, the hope of its final\neradication. If a little time, however, is given to both parties to cool,\nand to dispel their visionary fears, they will see that concurring in\nsentiment as to the evil, moral and political, the duty and interest of\nboth is to concur also in divining a practicable process of cure. Should\ntime not be given, and the schism be pushed to separation, it will be\nfor a short term only; two or three years trial will bring them back,\nlike quarrelling lovers to renewed embraces, and increased affections.\nThe experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had\nmutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties\nin Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a\nconvention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of\ntheir functionaries. With this consoling view, my greatest grief would be\nfor the fatal effect of such an event on the hopes and happiness of the\nworld. We exist, and are quoted, as standing proofs that a government,\nso modelled as to rest continually on the will of the whole society, is\na practicable government. Were we to break to pieces, it would damp the\nhopes and the efforts of the good, and give triumph to those of the bad\nthrough the whole enslaved world. As members, therefore, of the universal\nsociety of mankind, and standing in high and responsible relation with\nthem, it is our sacred duty to suppress passion among ourselves, and not\nto blast the confidence we have inspired of proof that a government of\nreason is better than one of force. This letter is not of facts but of\nopinions, as you will observe; and although the converse is generally\nthe most acceptable, I do not know that, in your situation, the opinions\nof your countrymen may not be as desirable to be known to you as facts.\nThey constitute, indeed, moral facts, as important as physical ones to\nthe attention of the public functionary. Wishing you a long career to\nthe services you may render your country, and that it may be a career\nof happiness and prosperity to yourself, I salute you with affectionate\nattachment and respect.\n\n\nTO MR. CORREA.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 24, 1820.\n\nYour kind letter, dear Sir, of October 12th, was handed to me by Dr.\nCooper, and was the first correction of an erroneous belief that you had\nlong since left our shores. Such had been Colonel Randolph's opinion,\nand his had governed mine. I received your adieu with feelings of sincere\nregret at the loss we were to sustain, and particularly of those friendly\nvisits by which you had made me so happy. I shall feel, too, the want of\nyour counsel and approbation in what we are doing and have yet to do in\nour University, the last of my mortal cares, and the last service I can\nrender my country. But turning from myself, throwing egotism behind me,\nand looking to your happiness, it is a duty and consolation of friendship\nto consider that that may be promoted by your return to your own country.\nThere I hope you will receive the honors and rewards you merit, and which\nmay make the rest of your life easy and happy; there too you will render\nprecious services by promoting the science of your country, and blessing\nits future generations with the advantages that bestows. Nor even there\nshall we lose all the benefits of your friendship; for this motive, as\nwell as the love of your own country, will be an incitement to promote\nthat intimate harmony between our two nations which is so much the\ninterest of both. Nothing is so important as that America shall separate\nherself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our\ncircumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct, the principles\nof our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter\nof the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall\nbe the polar stars of the American societies. I had written a letter to\na friend while you were here, in a part of which these sentiments were\nexpressed, and I had made an extract from it to put into your hands, as\ncontaining my creed on that subject. You had left us, however, in the\nmorning earlier than I had been aware; still I enclose it to you, because\nit would be a leading principle with me, had I longer to live. During\nsix and thirty years that I have been in situations to attend to the\nconduct and characters of foreign nations, I have found the government\nof Portugal the most just, inoffensive and unambitious of any one with\nwhich we had concern, without a single exception. I am sure that this is\nthe character of ours also. Two such nations can never wish to quarrel\nwith each other. Subordinate officers may be negligent, may have their\npassions and partialities, and be criminally remiss in preventing the\nenterprises of the lawless banditti who are to be found in every seaport\nof every country. The late piratical depredations which your commerce\nhas suffered as well as ours, and that of other nations, seem to have\nbeen committed by renegado rovers of several nations, French, English,\nAmerican, which they as well as we have not been careful enough to\nsuppress. I hope our Congress now about to meet will strengthen the\nmeasures of suppression. Of their disposition to do it there can be no\ndoubt; for all men of moral principle must be shocked at these atrocities.\nI had repeated conversations on this subject with the President while\nat his seat in this neighborhood. No man can abhor these enormities more\ndeeply. I trust it will not have been in the power of abandoned rovers,\nnor yet of negligent functionaries, to disturb the harmony of two nations\nso much disposed to mutual friendship, and interested in it. To this, my\ndear friend, you can be mainly instrumental, and I know your patriotism\nand philanthropy too well to doubt your best efforts to cement us. In\nthese I pray for your success, and that heaven may long preserve you\nin health and prosperity to do all the good to mankind to which your\nenlightened and benevolent mind disposes you. Of the continuance of my\naffectionate friendship, with that of my life, and of its fervent wishes\nfor your happiness, accept my sincere assurance.\n\n\nTO THE REVEREND JARED SPARKS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 4, 1820.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of September 18th is just received, with the book\naccompanying it. Its delay was owing to that of the box of books from\nMr. Guegan, in which it was packed. Being just setting out on a journey\nI have time only to look over the summary of contents. In this I see\nnothing in which I am likely to differ materially from you. I hold\nthe precepts of Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure,\nbenevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to\nthe principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations\nas corruptions of his religion, having no foundation in what came from\nhim. The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin,\nare, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from\npaganism only by being more unintelligible. The religion of Jesus is\nfounded in the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph\nover the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged. Thinking men of all\nnations rallied readily to the doctrine of one only God, and embraced it\nwith the pure morals which Jesus inculcated. If the freedom of religion,\nguaranteed to us by law _in theory_, can ever rise _in practice_ under\nthe overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over\nfanaticism, and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his\npseudo-priests, will again be restored to their original purity. This\nreformation will advance with the other improvements of the human mind,\nbut too late for me to witness it. Accept my thanks for your book, in\nwhich I shall read with pleasure your developments of the subject, and\nwith them the assurance of my high respect.\n\n\nTO JOSEPH C. CABELL.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, November 28, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I sent in due time the Report of the Visitors to the Governor,\nwith a request that he would endeavor to convene the Literary Board\nin time to lay it before the legislature on the second day of their\nsession. It was enclosed in a letter which will explain itself to you.\nIf delivered before the crowd of other business presses on them, they may\nact on it immediately, and before there will have been time for unfriendly\ncombinations and man\u0153uvres by the enemies of the institution. I enclose\nyou now a paper presenting some views which may be useful to you in\nconversations, to rebut exaggerated estimates of what our institution is\nto cost, and reproaches of deceptive estimates. One hundred and sixty-two\nthousand three hundred and sixty-four dollars will be about the cost of\nthe whole establishment, when completed. Not an office at Washington has\ncost less. The single building of the court house of Henrico has cost\nnearly that; and the massive walls of the millions of bricks of William\nand Mary could not now be built for a less sum.\n\nSurely Governor Clinton's display of the gigantic efforts of New York\ntowards the education of her citizens, will stimulate the pride as\nwell as the patriotism of our legislature, to look to the reputation\nand safety of their own country, to rescue it from the degradation of\nbecoming the Barbary of the Union, and of falling into the ranks of\nour own negroes. To that condition it is fast sinking. We shall be in\nthe hands of the other States, what our indigenous predecessors were\nwhen invaded by the science and arts of Europe. The mass of education\nin Virginia, before the Revolution, placed her with the foremost of her\nsister colonies. What is her education now? Where is it? The little we\nhave we import, like beggars, from other States; or import their beggars\nto bestow on us their miserable crumbs. And what is wanting to restore\nus to our station among our confederates? Not more money from the people.\nEnough has been raised by them, and appropriated to this very object. It\nis that it should be employed understandingly, and for their greatest\ngood. That good requires, that while they are instructed in general,\ncompetently to the common business of life, others should employ their\ngenius with necessary information to the useful arts, to inventions for\nsaving labor and increasing our comforts, to nourishing our health, to\ncivil government, military science, &c.\n\nWould it not have a good effect for the friends of this University to\ntake the lead in proposing and effecting a practical scheme of elementary\nschools? To assume the character of the friends, rather than the opponents\nof that object. The present plan has appropriated to the primary schools\nforty-five thousand dollars for three years, making one hundred and\nthirty-five thousand dollars. I should be glad to know if this sum has\neducated one hundred and thirty-five poor children? I doubt it much. And\nif it has, they have cost us one thousand dollars a piece for what might\nhave been done with thirty dollars. Supposing the literary revenue to be\nsixty thousand dollars, I think it demonstrable, that this sum, equally\ndivided between the two objects, would amply suffice for both. One hundred\ncounties, divided into about twelve wards each, on an average, and a\nschool in each ward of perhaps ten children, would be one thousand and\ntwo hundred schools, distributed proportionably over the surface of the\nState. The inhabitants of each ward, meeting together (as when they work\non the roads), building good log houses for their school and teacher,\nand contributing for his provisions, rations of pork, beef, and corn,\nin the proportion each of his other taxes, would thus lodge and feed\nhim without feeling it; and those of them who are able, paying for the\ntuition of their own children, would leave no call on the public fund but\nfor the tuition fee of, here and there, an accidental pauper, who would\nstill be fed and lodged with his parents. Suppose this fee ten dollars,\nand three hundred dollars apportioned to a county on an average, (more or\nless proportioned,) would there be thirty such paupers for every county?\nI think not. The truth is, that the want of common education with us is\nnot from our poverty, but from want of an orderly system. More money\nis now paid for the education of a part, than would be paid for that\nof the whole, if systematically arranged. Six thousand common schools\nin New York, fifty pupils in each, three hundred thousand in all; one\nhundred and sixty thousand dollars annually paid to the masters; forty\nestablished academies, with two thousand two hundred and eighteen pupils;\nand five colleges, with seven hundred and eighteen students; to which\nlast classes of institutions seven hundred and twenty thousand dollars\nhave been given; and the whole appropriations for education estimated\nat two and a half millions of dollars! What a pigmy to this is Virginia\nbecome, with a population almost equal to that of New York! And whence\nthis difference? From the difference their rulers set on the value of\nknowledge, and the prosperity it produces. But still, if a pigmy, let\nher do what a pigmy may do. If among fifty children in each of the six\nthousand schools of New York, there are only paupers enough to employ\ntwenty-five dollars of public money to each school, surely among the\nten children of each of our one thousand and two hundred schools, the\nsame sum of twenty-five dollars to each school will teach its paupers,\n(five times as much as to the same number in New York,) and will amount\nfor the whole to thirty thousand dollars a year, the one-half only of\nour literary revenue.\n\nDo then, dear Sir, think of this, and engage our friends to take in\nhand the whole subject. It will reconcile the friends of the elementary\nschools, and none are more warmly so than myself, lighten the difficulties\nof the University, and promote in every order of men the degree of\ninstruction proportioned to their condition, and to their views in life.\nIt will combine with the mass of our force, a wise direction of it,\nwhich will insure to our country its future prosperity and safety. I\nhad formerly thought that visitors of the school might be chosen by the\ncounty, and charged to provide teachers for every ward, and to superintend\nthem. I now think it would be better for every ward to choose its own\nresident visitor, whose business it would be to keep a teacher in the\nward, to superintend the school, and to call meetings of the ward for all\npurposes relating to it; their accounts to be settled, and wards laid\noff by the courts. I think ward elections better for many reasons, one\nof which is sufficient, that it will keep elementary education out of\nthe hands of fanaticising preachers, who, in county elections, would be\nuniversally chosen, and the predominant sect of the county would possess\nitself of all its schools.\n\nA wrist stiffened by an ancient accident, now more so by the effect of\nage, renders writing a slow and irksome operation with me. I cannot,\ntherefore, present these views, by separate letters to each of our\ncolleagues in the legislature, but must pray you to communicate them to\nMr. Johnson and General Breckenridge, and to request them to consider\nthis as equally meant for them. Mr. Gordon being the local representative\nof the University, and among its most zealous friends, would be a more\nuseful second to General Breckenridge in the House of Delegates, by a\nfree communication of what concerns the University, with which he has\nhad little opportunity of becoming acquainted. So, also, would it be to\nMr. Rives, who would be a friendly advocate.\n\nAccept the assurances of my constant and affectionate esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO MR. MADISON.\n\n POPLAR FOREST, November 29, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The enclosed letter from our ancient friend Tenche Coxe, came\nunfortunately to Monticello after I had left it, and has had a dilatory\npassage to this place, where I received it yesterday, and obey its\ninjunction of immediate transmission to you. We should have recognized\nthe style even without a signature, and although so written as to be\nmuch of it indecipherable. This is a sample of the effects we may expect\nfrom the late mischievous law vacating every four years nearly all\nthe executive officers of the government. It saps the constitutional\nand salutary functions of the President, and introduces a principle\nof intrigue and corruption, which will soon leaven the mass, not only\nof Senators, but of citizens. It is more baneful than the attempt\nwhich failed in the beginning of the government, to make all officers\nirremovable but with the consent of the Senate. This places, every four\nyears, all appointments under their power, and even obliges them to act\non every one nomination. It will keep in constant excitement all the\nhungry cormorants for office, render them, as well as those in place,\nsycophants to their Senators, engage these in eternal intrigue to turn\nout one and put in another, in cabals to swap work; and make of them what\nall executive directories become, mere sinks of corruption and faction.\nThis must have been one of the midnight signatures of the President,\nwhen he had not time to consider, or even to read the law; and the more\nfatal as being irrepealable but with the consent of the Senate, which\nwill never be obtained.\n\nF. Gilmer has communicated to me Mr. Correa's letter to him of adieux to\nhis friends here, among whom he names most affectionately Mrs. Madison\nand yourself. No foreigner, I believe, has ever carried with him more\nfriendly regrets. He was to sail the next day (November 10) in the\nBritish packet for England, and thence take his passage in January for\nBrazil. His present views are of course liable to be affected by the\nevents of Portugal, and the possible effects of their example on Brazil.\nI expect to return to Monticello about the middle of the ensuing month,\nand salute you with constant affection and respect.\n\n\nTO THOMAS RITCHIE.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 25, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--On my return home after a long absence, I find here your favor\nof November the 23d, with Colonel Taylor's \"Construction Construed,\"\nwhich you have been so kind as to send me, in the name of the author as\nwell as yourself. Permit me, if you please, to use the same channel for\nconveying to him the thanks I render you also for this mark of attention.\nI shall read it, I know, with edification, as I did his Inquiry, to\nwhich I acknowledge myself indebted for many valuable ideas, and for the\ncorrection of some errors of early opinion, never seen in a correct light\nuntil presented to me in that work. That the present volume is equally\northodox, I know before reading it, because I know that Colonel Taylor\nand myself have rarely, if ever, differed in any political principle\nof importance. Every act of his life, and every word he ever wrote,\nsatisfies me of this. So, also, as to the two Presidents, late and now\nin office, I know them both to be of principles as truly republican as\nany men living. If there be anything amiss, therefore, in the present\nstate of our affairs, as the formidable deficit lately unfolded to us\nindicates, I ascribe it to the inattention of Congress to their duties,\nto their unwise dissipation and waste of the public contributions. They\nseemed, some little while ago, to be at a loss for objects whereon to\nthrow away the supposed fathomless funds of the treasury. I had feared\nthe result, because I saw among them some of my old fellow laborers, of\ntried and known principles, yet often in their minorities. I am aware\nthat in one of their most ruinous vagaries, the people were themselves\nbetrayed into the same phrenzy with their Representatives. The deficit\nproduced, and a heavy tax to supply it, will, I trust, bring both to\ntheir sober senses.\n\nBut it is not from this branch of government we have most to fear. Taxes\nand short elections will keep them right. The judiciary of the United\nStates is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working\nunder ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.\nThey are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general\nand special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will\nlay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English\nlaw to forget the maxim, \"_boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem_.\"\nWe shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their\nfive lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of\nour book, in his address to the public, I will say, that \"against this\nevery man should raise his voice,\" and more, should uplift his arm. Who\nwrote this admirable address? Sound, luminous, strong, not a word too\nmuch, nor one which can be changed but for the worse. That pen should\ngo on, lay bare these wounds of our constitution, expose the decisions\n_seriatim_, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to\nthese bold speculators on its patience. Having found, from experience,\nthat impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they\nconsider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to\npublic opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first\nintroduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in\nconclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and\nwith the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty\nchief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his\nown reasoning. A judiciary law was once reported by the Attorney General\nto Congress, requiring each judge to deliver his opinion _seriatim_ and\nopenly, and then to give it in writing to the clerk to be entered in\nthe record. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a\ngood thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism,\nat least in a republican government.\n\nBut to return to your letter; you ask for my opinion of the work you send\nme, and to let it go out to the public. This I have ever made a point of\ndeclining, (one or two instances only excepted.) Complimentary thanks\nto writers who have sent me their works, have betrayed me sometimes\nbefore the public, without my consent having been asked. But I am far\nfrom presuming to direct the reading of my fellow citizens, who are good\nenough judges themselves of what is worthy their reading. I am, also,\ntoo desirous of quiet to place myself in the way of contention. Against\nthis I am admonished by bodily decay, which cannot be unaccompanied by\ncorresponding wane of the mind. Of this I am as yet sensible, sufficiently\nto be unwilling to trust myself before the public, and when I cease\nto be so, I hope that my friends will be too careful of me to draw me\nforth and present me, like a Priam in armor, as a spectacle for public\ncompassion. I hope our political bark will ride through all its dangers;\nbut I can in future be but an inert passenger.\n\nI salute you with sentiments of great friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO M. DE LA FAYETTE.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 26, 1820.\n\nIt is long, indeed, my very dear friend, since I have been able to address\na letter to you. For more than two years my health has been so entirely\nprostrate, that I have, of necessity, intermitted all correspondence. The\ndislocated wrist, too, which perhaps you may recollect, has now become so\nstiff from the effects of age, that writing is become a slow and painful\noperation, and scarcely ever undertaken but under the goad of imperious\nbusiness. In the meantime your country has been going on less well than\nI had hoped. But it will go on. The light which has been shed on the\nmind of man through the civilized world, has given it a new direction,\nfrom which no human power can divert it. The sovereigns of Europe who\nare wise, or have wise counsellors, see this, and bend to the breeze\nwhich blows; the unwise alone stiffen and meet its inevitable crush.\nThe volcanic rumblings in the bowels of Europe, from north to south,\nseem to threaten a general explosion, and the march of armies into Italy\ncannot end in a simple march. The disease of liberty is catching; those\narmies will take it in the south, carry it thence to their own country,\nspread there the infection of revolution and representative government,\nand raise its people from the prone condition of brutes to the erect\naltitude of man. Some fear our envelopment in the wars engendering from\nthe unsettled state of our affairs with Spain, and therefore are anxious\nfor a ratification of our treaty with her. I fear no such thing, and\nhope that if ratified by Spain it will be rejected here. We may justly\nsay to Spain, \"when this negotiation commenced, twenty years ago, your\nauthority was acknowledged by those you are selling to us. That authority\nis now renounced, and their right of self-disposal asserted. In buying\nthem from you, then, we buy but a war-title, a right to subdue them,\nwhich you can neither convey nor we acquire. This is a family quarrel in\nwhich we have no right to meddle. Settle it between yourselves, and we\nwill then treat with the party whose right is acknowledged.\" With whom\nthat will be, no doubt can be entertained. And why should we revolt them\nby purchasing them as cattle, rather than receiving them as fellow-men?\nSpain has held off until she sees they are lost to her, and now thinks\nit better to get something than nothing for them. When she shall see\nSouth America equally desperate, she will be wise to sell that also.\n\nWith us things are going on well. The boisterous sea of liberty indeed\nis never without a wave, and that from Missouri is now rolling towards\nus, but we shall ride over it as we have over all others. It is not\na moral question, but one merely of power. Its object is to raise a\ngeographical principle for the choice of a president, and the noise\nwill be kept up till that is effected. All know that permitting the\nslaves of the south to spread into the west will not add one being to\nthat unfortunate condition, that it will increase the happiness of those\nexisting, and by spreading them over a larger surface, will dilute the\nevil everywhere, and facilitate the means of getting finally rid of it,\nan event more anxiously wished by those on whom it presses than by the\nnoisy pretenders to exclusive humanity. In the meantime, it is a ladder\nfor rivals climbing to power.\n\nIn a letter to Mr. Porrey, of March 18th, 1819, I informed him of the\nsuccess of our application to Congress on his behalf. I enclosed this\nletter to you, but hearing nothing from him, and as you say nothing of\nit in yours of July 20th, I am not without fear it may have miscarried.\nIn the present I enclose for him the Auditor's certificate, and the\nletters of General Washington and myself, which he had forwarded to me\nwith a request of their return. Your kindness in delivering this will\nrender unnecessary another letter from me, an effort which necessarily\nobliges me to spare myself.\n\nIf you shall hear from me more seldom than heretofore, ascribe it, my\never dear friend, to the heavy load of seventy-seven years and to waning\nhealth, but not to weakened affections; these will continue what they\nhave ever been, and will ever be sincere and warm to the latest breath\nof yours devotedly.\n\n\nTO MR. ROSCOE.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 27, 1820.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your letter received more than a twelvemonth ago, with the two\ntracts on penal jurisprudence, and the literary institution of Liverpool,\nought long since to have called for the thanks I now return, had it been\nin my power sooner to have tendered them. But a long continuance of ill\nhealth has suspended all power of answering the kind attentions with which\nI have been honored during it; and it is only now that a state of slow\nand uncertain convalescence enables me to make acknowledgments which have\nbeen so long and painfully delayed. The treatise on penal jurisprudence I\nread with great pleasure. Beccaria had demonstrated general principles,\nbut practical applications were difficult. Our States are trying them\nwith more or less success; and the great light you have thrown on the\nsubject will, I am sure, be useful to our experiment. For the thing,\nas yet, is but in experiment. Your Liverpool institution will also aid\nus in the organization of our new University, an establishment now in\nprogress in this State, and to which my remaining days and faculties\nwill be devoted. When ready for its Professors, we shall apply for them\nchiefly to your island. Were we content to remain stationary in science,\nwe should take them from among ourselves; but, desirous of advancing, we\nmust seek them in countries already in advance; and identity of language\npoints to our best resource. To furnish inducements, we provide for the\nProfessors separate buildings, in which themselves and their families\nmay be handsomely and comfortably lodged, and to liberal salaries will\nbe added lucrative perquisites. This institution will be based on the\nillimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to\nfollow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as\nreason is left free to combat it.\n\nWe are looking with wonder at what is passing among you. It\n\n \"Resembles ocean into tempest wrought,\n To waft a feather, or to drown a fly.\"\n\nThere must be something in these agitations more than meets the eye of a\ndistant spectator. Your queen must be used in this as a rallying point\nmerely, around which are gathering the discontents of every quarter\nand character. If these flowed from theories of government only, and if\nmerely from the heads of speculative men, they would admit of parley,\nof negotiation, of management. But I fear they are the workings of\nhungry bellies, which nothing but food will fill and quiet. I sincerely\nwish you safely out of them. Circumstances have nourished between our\nkindred countries angry dispositions which both ought long since to have\nbanished from their bosoms. I have ever considered a cordial affection\nas the first interest of both. No nation on earth can hurt us so much\nas yours, none be more useful to you than ours. The obstacle, we have\nbelieved, was in the obstinate and unforgiving temper of your late\nking, and a continuance of his prejudices kept up from habit, after he\nwas with drawn from power. I hope I now see symptoms of sounder views\nin your government; in which I know it will be cordially met by ours,\nas it would have been by every administration which has existed under\nour present constitution. None desired it more cordially than myself,\nwhatever different opinions were impressed on your government by a party\nwho wishes to have its weight in their scale as its exclusive friends.\n\nMy ancient friend and classmate, James Maury, informs me by letter that\nhe has sent me a bust which I shall receive with great pleasure and\nthankfulness, and shall arrange in honorable file with those of some\ncherished characters. Will you permit me to place here my affectionate\nsouvenirs of him, and accept for yourself the assurance of the highest\nconsideration and esteem.\n\n\nTO FRANCIS EPPES.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 19, 1821.\n\nDEAR FRANCIS,--Your letter of the 1st came safely to hand. I am sorry\nyou have lost Mr. Elliot, however the kindness of Dr. Cooper will be\nable to keep you in the track of what is worthy of your time.\n\nYou ask my opinion of Lord Bolingbroke and Thomas Paine. They were alike\nin making bitter enemies of the priests and pharisees of their day. Both\nwere honest men; both advocates for human liberty. Paine wrote for a\ncountry which permitted him to push his reasoning to whatever length it\nwould go. Lord Bolingbroke in one restrained by a constitution, and by\npublic opinion. He was called indeed a tory; but his writings prove him\na stronger advocate for liberty than any of his countrymen, the whigs of\nthe present day. Irritated by his exile, he committed one act unworthy\nof him, in connecting himself momentarily with a prince rejected by\nhis country. But he redeemed that single act by his establishment of\nthe principles which proved it to be wrong. These two persons differed\nremarkably in the style of their writing, each leaving a model of what is\nmost perfect in both extremes of the simple and the sublime. No writer\nhas exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, in perspicuity\nof expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming\nlanguage. In this he may be compared with Dr. Franklin; and indeed\nhis Common Sense was, for awhile, believed to have been written by Dr.\nFranklin, and published under the borrowed name of Paine, who had come\nover with him from England. Lord Bolingbroke's, on the other hand, is a\nstyle of the highest order. The lofty, rhythmical, full-flowing eloquence\nof Cicero. Periods of just measure, their members proportioned, their\nclose full and round. His conceptions, too, are bold and strong, his\ndiction copious, polished and commanding as his subject. His writings are\ncertainly the finest samples in the English language, of the eloquence\nproper for the Senate. His political tracts are safe reading for the\nmost timid religionist, his philosophical, for those who are not afraid\nto trust their reason with discussions of right and wrong.\n\nYou have asked my opinion of these persons, and, _to you_, I have given\nit freely. But, remember, that I am old, that I wish not to make new\nenemies, nor to give offence to those who would consider a difference\nof opinion as sufficient ground for unfriendly dispositions. God bless\nyou, and make you what I wish you to be.\n\n\nTO ARCHIBALD THWEAT.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 19, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I duly received your favor of the 11th, covering Judge Roane's\nletter, which I now return. Of the kindness of his sentiments expressed\ntowards myself I am highly sensible; and could I believe that my public\nservices had merited the approbation he so indulgently bestows, the\nsatisfaction I should derive from it would be reward enough to his wish\nthat I would take a part in the transactions of the present day. I am\nsensible of my incompetence. For first, I know little about them, having\nlong withdrawn my attention from public affairs, and resigned myself\nwith folded arms to the care of those who are to care for us all. And,\nnext, the hand of time pressing heavily on me, in mind as well as body,\nleaves to neither sufficient energy to engage in public contentions.\nI am sensible of the inroads daily making by the federal, into the\njurisdiction of its co-ordinate associates, the State governments. The\nlegislative and executive branches may sometimes err, but elections\nand dependence will bring them to rights. The judiciary branch is the\ninstrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to\npress us at last into one consolidated mass. Against this I know no\none who, equally with Judge Roane himself, possesses the power and the\ncourage to make resistance; and to him I look, and have long looked,\nas our strongest bulwark. If Congress fails to shield the States from\ndangers so palpable and so imminent, the States must shield themselves,\nand meet the invader foot to foot. This is already half done by Colonel\nTaylor's book; because a conviction that we are right accomplishes half\nthe difficulty of correcting wrong. This book is the most effectual\nretraction of our government to its original principles which has ever\nyet been sent by heaven to our aid. Every State in the Union should\ngive a copy to every member they elect, as a standing instruction, and\nours should set the example. Accept with Mrs. Thweat the assurance of\nmy affectionate and respectful attachment.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 22, 1821.\n\nI was quite rejoiced, dear Sir, to see that you had health and spirits\nenough to take part in the late convention of your State, for revising\nits constitution, and to bear your share in its debates and labors. The\namendments of which we have as yet heard, prove the advance of liberalism\nin the intervening period; and encourage a hope that the human mind will\nsome day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago. This\ncountry, which has given to the world the example of physical liberty,\nowes to it that of moral emancipation also, for as yet it is but nominal\nwith us. The inquisition of public opinion overwhelms in practice, the\nfreedom asserted by the laws in theory.\n\nOur anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question,\nwhat does the Holy Alliance in and out of Congress mean to do with\nus on the Missouri question? And this, by-the-bye, is but the name of\nthe case, it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the ejectment. The\nreal question, as seen in the States afflicted with this unfortunate\npopulation, is, are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a\ndagger? For if Congress has the power to regulate the conditions of the\ninhabitants of the States, within the States, it will be but another\nexercise of that power, to declare that all shall be free. Are we then\nto see again Athenian and Lacedemonian confederacies? To wage another\nPeloponnesian war to settle the ascendency between them? Or is this\nthe tocsin of merely a servile war? That remains to be seen; but not, I\nhope, by you or me. Surely, they will parley awhile, and give us time\nto get out of the way. What a Bedlamite is man? But let us turn from\nour own uneasiness to the miseries of our southern friends. Bolivar\nand Morillo, it seems, have come to the parley, with dispositions at\nlength to stop the useless effusion of human blood in that quarter. I\nfeared from the beginning, that these people were not yet sufficiently\nenlightened for self-government; and that after wading through blood and\nslaughter, they would end in military tyrannies, more or less numerous.\nYet as they wished to try the experiment, I wished them success in it;\nthey have now tried it, and will possibly find that their safest road\nwill be an accommodation with the mother country, which shall hold them\ntogether by the single link of the same chief magistrate, leaving to him\npower enough to keep them in peace with one another, and to themselves\nthe essential power of self-government and self-improvement, until they\nshall be sufficiently trained by education and habits of freedom, to walk\nsafely by themselves. Representative government, native functionaries,\na qualified negative on their laws, with a previous security by compact\nfor freedom of commerce, freedom of the press, _habeas corpus_ and trial\nby jury, would make a good beginning. This last would be the school in\nwhich their people might begin to learn the exercise of civic duties as\nwell as rights. For freedom of religion they are not yet prepared. The\nscales of bigotry have not sufficiently fallen from their eyes, to accept\nit for themselves individually, much less to trust others with it. But\nthat will come in time, as well as a general ripeness to break entirely\nfrom the parent stem. You see, my dear Sir, how easily we prescribe\nfor others a cure for their difficulties, while we cannot cure our own.\nWe must leave both, I believe, to heaven, and wrap ourselves up in the\nmantle of resignation, and of that friendship of which I tender to you\nthe most sincere assurances.\n\n\nTO JOSEPH C. CABELL.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 31, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favors of the 18th and 25th came together, three days\nago. They fill me with gloom as to the dispositions of our legislature\ntowards the University. I perceive that I am not to live to see it\nopened. As to what had better be done within the limits of their will,\nI trust with entire confidence to what yourself, Gen. Breckenridge and\nMr. Johnson shall think best. You will see what is practicable, and give\nit such shape as you think best. If a loan is to be resorted to, I think\nsixty thousand dollars will be necessary, including the library. Its\ninstalments cannot begin until those of the former loan are accomplished;\nand they should not begin later, nor be less than thirteen thousand\ndollars a year. (I think it safe to retain two thousand dollars a year\nfor care of the buildings, improvement of the grounds, and unavoidable\ncontingencies.) To extinguish this second loan, will require between\nfive and six instalments, which will carry us to the end of 1833, or\nthirteen years from this time. My individual opinion is, that we had\nbetter not open the institution until the buildings, library, and all,\nare finished, and our funds cleared of incumbrance. Those buildings once\nerected, will secure the full object infallibly at the end of thirteen\nyears, and as much earlier as the legislature shall choose. And if we\nwere to begin sooner, with half funds only, it would satisfy the common\nmind, prevent their aid beyond that point, and our institution remaining\nat that forever, would be no more than the paltry academies we now have.\nEven with the whole funds we shall be reduced to six professors. While\nHarvard will still prime it over us with her twenty professors. How many\nof our youths she now has, learning the lessons of anti-Missourianism,\nI know not; but a gentleman lately from Princeton, told me he saw there\nthe list of the students at that place, and that more than half were\nVirginians. These will return home, no doubt, deeply impressed with the\nsacred principles of our Holy Alliance of restrictionists.\n\nBut the gloomiest of all prospects, is in the desertion of the best\nfriends of the institution, for desertion I must call it. I know not\nthe necessities which may force this on you. General Cocke, you say,\nwill explain them to me; but I cannot conceive them, nor persuade\nmyself they are uncontrollable. I have ever hoped, that yourself, Gen.\nBreckenridge and Mr. Johnson would stand at your posts in the legislature,\nuntil everything was effected, and the institution opened. If it is so\ndifficult to get along with all the energy and influence of our present\ncolleagues in the legislature, how can we expect to proceed at all,\nreducing our moving power? I know well your devotion to your country,\nand your foresight of the awful scenes coming on her, sooner or later.\nWith this foresight, what service can we ever render her equal to this?\nWhat object of our lives can we propose so important? What interest of\nour own which ought not to be postponed to this? Health, time, labor,\non what in the single life which nature has given us, can these be\nbetter bestowed than on this immortal boon to our country? The exertions\nand the mortifications are temporary; the benefit eternal. If any\nmember of our college of visitors could justifiably withdraw from this\nsacred duty, it would be myself, who, _quadragenis stipendiis jamdudum\nperactis_, have neither vigor of body nor mind left to keep the field;\nbut I will die in the last ditch, and so I hope you will, my friend, as\nwell as our firm-breasted brothers and colleagues, Mr. Johnson and Gen.\nBreckenridge. Nature will not give you a second life wherein to atone for\nthe omissions of this. Pray then, dear and very dear Sir, do not think\nof deserting us, but view the sacrifices which seem to stand in your\nway, as the lesser duties, and such as ought to be postponed to this,\nthe greatest of all. Continue with us in these holy labors, until having\nseen their accomplishment, we may say with old Simeon, \"_nunc dimittas,\nDomine_.\" Under all circumstances, however, of praise or blame, I shall\nbe affectionately yours.\n\n\nTO JARED MANSFIELD, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 13, 1821.\n\nI am favored, Sir, with your letter of January 26th, and am duly\nsensible of the honor proposed of giving to my portrait a place among\nthe benefactors of our nation, and of the establishment of West Point\nin particular. I have ever considered that establishment as of major\nimportance to our country, and in whatever I could do for it, I viewed\nmyself as performing a duty only. This is certainly more than requited\nby the kind sentiments expressed in your letter. The real debt of the\ninstitution is to its able and zealous professors. Mr. Sully, I fear,\nhowever, will consider the trouble of his journey, and the employment\nof his fine pencil, as illy bestowed on an ottamy of 78. Voltaire, when\nrequested by a female friend to sit for his bust by the sculptor Pigalle,\nanswered, \"J'ai soixante seize ans; et M. Pigalle doit, dit-on venir\nmodeler mon visage. Mais, Madame, il faudrait que j'eusse un visage. On\nn'en devinerait \u00e0 peine la place mes yeux sont enfonces de trois pouces;\nmes joues sont de vieux parchemin mal coll\u00e9s sur des os qui ne tiennent \u00e0\nrien. Le peu de dents que j'avais est parti.\" I will conclude, however,\nwith him, that what remains is at your service, and that of the pencil\nof Mr. Sully. I shall be at home till the middle of April, when I shall\ngo for some time to an occasional and distant residence. Within this\nterm Mr. Sully will be pleased to consult his own convenience, in which\nthe state of the roads will of course have great weight. Every day of\nit will be equal with me.\n\nI pray you, Sir, to convey to the brethren of your institution, and to\naccept for yourself also, the assurance of my high consideration and\nregard.\n\n\nTO GENERAL BRECKENRIDGE.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 15, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I learn, with deep affliction, that nothing is likely to be\ndone for our University this year. So near as it is to the shore that\none shove more would land it there, I had hoped that would be given;\nand that we should open with the next year an institution on which the\nfortunes of our country may depend more than may meet the general eye.\nThe reflections that the boys of this age are to be the men of the next;\nthat they should be prepared to receive the holy charge which we are\ncherishing to deliver over to them; that in establishing an institution\nof wisdom for them, we secure it to all our future generations; that\nin fulfilling this duty, we bring home to our own bosoms the sweet\nconsolation of seeing our sons rising under a luminous tuition, to\ndestinies of high promise; these are considerations which will occur to\nall; but all, I fear, do not see the speck in our horizon which is to\nburst on us as a tornado, sooner or later. The line of division lately\nmarked out between different portions of our confederacy, is such as will\nnever, I fear, be obliterated, and we are now trusting to those who are\nagainst us in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the\nminds and affections of our youth. If, as has been estimated, we send\nthree hundred thousand dollars a year to the northern seminaries, for\nthe instruction of our own sons, then we must have there five hundred\nof our sons, imbibing opinions and principles in discord with those of\ntheir own country. This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence,\nand if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy. We are now certainly\nfurnishing recruits to their school. If it be asked what are we to do,\nor said we cannot give the last lift to the University without stopping\nour primary schools, and these we think most important; I answer, I know\ntheir importance. Nobody can doubt my zeal for the general instruction\nof the people. Who first started that idea? I may surely say, myself.\nTurn to the bill in the revised code, which I drew more than forty years\nago, and before which the idea of a plan for the education of the people,\ngenerally, had never been suggested in this State. There you will see\ndeveloped the first rudiments of the whole system of general education\nwe are now urging and acting on; and it is well known to those with whom\nI have acted on this subject, that I never have proposed a sacrifice of\nthe primary to the ultimate grade of instruction. Let us keep our eye\nsteadily on the whole system. If we cannot do everything at once, let\nus do one at a time. The primary schools need no preliminary expense;\nthe ultimate grade requires a considerable expenditure in advance. A\nsuspension of proceeding for a year or two on the primary schools, and\nan application of the whole income, during that time, to the completion\nof the buildings necessary for the University, would enable us then to\nstart both institutions at the same time. The intermediate branch, of\ncolleges, academies and private classical schools, for the middle grade,\nmay hereafter receive any necessary aids when the funds shall become\ncompetent. In the meantime, they are going on sufficiently, as they\nhave ever yet gone on, at the private expense of those who use them,\nand who in numbers and means are competent to their own exigencies. The\nexperience of three years has, I presume, left no doubt that the present\nplan of primary schools, of putting money into the hands of twelve hundred\npersons acting for nothing, and under no responsibility, is entirely\ninefficient. Some other must be thought of; and during this pause, if\nit be only for a year, the whole revenue of that year, with that of the\nlast three years which has not been already thrown away, would place our\nUniversity in readiness to start with a better organization of primary\nschools, and both may then go on, hand in hand, forever. No diminution\nof the capital will in this way have been incurred; a principle which\nought to be deemed sacred. A relinquishment of interest on the late loan\nof sixty thousand dollars, would so far, also, forward the University\nwithout lessening the capital.\n\nBut what may be best done I leave with entire confidence to yourself and\nyour colleagues in legislation, who know better than I do the conditions\nof the literary fund and its wisest application; and I shall acquiesce\nwith perfect resignation to their will. I have brooded, perhaps with\nfondness, over this establishment, as it held up to me the hope of\ncontinuing to be useful while I continued to live. I had believed that\nthe course and circumstances of my life had placed within my power some\nservices favorable to the outset of the institution. But this may be\negotism; pardonable, perhaps, when I express a consciousness that my\ncolleagues and successors will do as well, whatever the legislature\nshall enable them to do.\n\nI have thus, my dear Sir, opened my bosom, with all its anxieties, freely\nto you. I blame nobody for seeing things in a different light. I am\nsure that all act conscientiously, and that all will be done honestly\nand wisely which can be done. I yield the concerns of the world with\ncheerfulness to those who are appointed in the order of nature to succeed\nto them; and for yourself, for our colleagues, and for all in charge of\nour country's future fame and fortune, I offer up sincere prayers.\n\n\nTO DABNEY TERRELL, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 26, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--While you were in this neighborhood, you mentioned to me\nyour intention of studying the law, and asked my opinion as to the\nsufficient course of reading. I gave it to you, _ore tenus_, and with\nso little consideration that I do not remember what it was; but I have\nsince recollected that I once wrote a letter to Dr. Cooper,[13] on\ngood consideration of the subject. He was then law-lecturer, I believe,\nat Carlisle. My stiffening wrist makes writing now a slow and painful\noperation, but my granddaughter Ellen undertakes to copy the letter,\nwhich I shall enclose herein.\n\nI notice in that letter four distinct epochs at which the English laws\nhave been reviewed, and their whole body, as existing at each epoch,\nwell digested into a code. These digests were by Bracton, Coke, Matthew\nBacon and Blackstone. Bracton having written about the commencement of\nthe extant statutes, may be considered as having given a digest of the\nlaws then in being, written and unwritten, and forming, therefore, the\ntextual code of what is called the common law, just at the period too\nwhen it begins to be altered by statutes to which we can appeal. But\nso much of his matter is become obsolete by change of circumstances or\naltered by statute, that the student may omit him for the present, and\n\n1st. Begin with [14]Coke's four Institutes. These give a complete body\nof the law as it stood in the reign of the first James, an epoch the\nmore interesting to us, as we separated at that point from English\nlegislation, and acknowledge no subsequent statutory alterations.\n\n2. Then passing over (for occasional reading as hereafter proposed)\nall the reports and treatises to the time of Matthew Bacon, read his\nabridgment, compiled about one hundred years after Coke's, in which they\nare all embodied. This gives numerous applications of the old principles\nto new cases, and gives the general state of the English law at that\nperiod.\n\nHere, too, the student should take up the chancery branch of the law,\nby reading the first and second abridgments of the cases in Equity. The\nsecond is by the same Matthew Bacon, the first having been published\nsome time before. The alphabetical order adopted by Bacon, is certainly\nnot as satisfactory as the systematic. But the arrangement is under\nvery general and leading heads, and these, indeed, with very little\ndifficulty, might be systematically instead of alphabetically arranged\nand read.\n\n3. Passing now in like manner over all intervening reports and tracts,\nthe student may take up Blackstone's Commentaries, published about\ntwenty-five years later than Bacon's abridgment, and giving the substance\nof these new reports and tracts. This review is not so full as that of\nBacon, by any means, but better digested. Here, too, Wooddeson should be\nread as supplementary to Blackstone, under heads too shortly treated by\nhim. Fonblanque's edition of Francis' Maxims of Equity, and Bridgman's\ndigested Index, into which the latter cases are incorporated, are also\nsupplementary in the chancery branch, in which Blackstone is very short.\n\nThis course comprehends about twenty-six 8vo volumes, and reading four\nor five hours a day would employ about two years.\n\nAfter these, the best of the reporters since Blackstone should be read\nfor the new cases which have occurred since his time. Which they are I\nknow not, as all of them are since my time.\n\nBy way of change and relief for another hour or two in the day, should\nbe read the law-tracts of merit which are many, and among them all those\nof Baron Gilbert are of the first order. In these hours, too, may be\nread Bracton, (now translated,) and Justinian's Institute. The method\nof these two last works is very much the same, and their language often\nquite so. Justinian is very illustrative of the doctrines of equity,\nand is often appealed to, and Cooper's edition is the best on account\nof the analogies and contrasts he has given of the Roman and English\nlaw. After Bracton, Reeves' History of the English Law may be read to\nadvantage. During this same hour or two of lighter law reading, select\nand leading cases of the reporters may be successively read, which the\nseveral digests will have pointed out and referred to.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have here sketched the reading in common law and chancery which I\nsuppose necessary for a reputable practitioner in those courts. But\nthere are other branches of law in which, although it is not expected\nhe should be an adept, yet when it occurs to speak of them, it should\nbe understandingly to a decent degree. There are the Admiralty law,\nEcclesiastical law, and the Law of Nations. I would name as elementary\nbooks in these branches, Molloy de Jure Maritimo. Brown's Compend. of\nthe Civil and Admiralty Law, 2 vols. 8vo. The Jura Ecclesiastica, 2\nvols. 8vo. And Les Institutions du droit de la Nature et des Gens de\nReyneval, 1 vol. 8vo.\n\nBesides these six hours of law reading, light and heavy, and those\nnecessary for the repasts of the day, for exercise and sleep, which\nsuppose to be ten or twelve, there will still be six or eight hours for\nreading history, politics, ethics, physics, oratory, poetry, criticism,\n&c., as necessary as law to form an accomplished lawyer.\n\nThe letter to Dr. Cooper, with this as a supplement, will give you those\nideas on a sufficient course of law reading which I ought to have done\nwith more consideration at the moment of your first request. Accept\nthem now as a testimony of my esteem, and of sincere wishes for your\nsuccess; and the family, _un\u00e2 voce_, desires me to convey theirs with\nmy own affectionate salutations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [13] January 16, 1814.\n\n [14] Since the date of this letter, a most important\n and valuable edition has been published of Coke's First\n Institute. The editor, Thomas, has analyzed the whole work,\n and re-composed its matter in the order of Blackstone's\n Commentaries, not omitting a sentence of Lord Coke's text,\n nor inserting one not his. In notes, under the text,\n he has given the modern decisions relating to the same\n subjects, rendering it thus as methodical, lucid, easy and\n agreeable to the reader as Blackstone, and more precise\n and profound. It can now be no longer doubted that this is\n the very best elementary work for a beginner in the study\n of the law. It is not, I suppose, to be had in this State,\n and questionable if in the North, as yet, and it is dear,\n costing in England four guineas or nineteen dollars, to\n which add the duty here on imported books, which, on the\n three volumes 8vo, is something more than three dollars, or\n one dollar the 8vo volume. This is a tax on learned readers\n to support printers for the readers of \"The Delicate\n Distress, and The Wild Irish Boy\".\n\n\nTO TIMOTHY PICKERING, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 27, 1821.\n\nI have received, Sir, your favor of the 12th, and I assure you I received\nit with pleasure. It is true, as you say, that we have differed in\npolitical opinions; but I can say with equal truth, that I never suffered\na political to become a personal difference. I have been left on this\nground by some friends whom I dearly loved, but I was never the first\nto separate. With some others, of politics different from mine, I have\ncontinued in the warmest friendship to this day, and to all, and to\nyourself particularly, I have ever done moral justice.\n\nI thank you for Mr. Channing's discourse, which you have been so kind as\nto forward me. It is not yet at hand, but is doubtless on its way. I had\nreceived it through another channel, and read it with high satisfaction.\nNo one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason\nin its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done\naway the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that\nthree are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the\nartificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure\nof Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has\nbeen taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines\nhe inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples; and\nmy opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely\nfrom his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian.\nI know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The\nreligion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus,\nso muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured\nthem into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable\nthinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to\npronounce its founder an impostor. Had there never been a commentator,\nthere never would have been an infidel. In the present advance of truth,\nwhich we both approve, I do not know that you and I may think alike\non all points. As the Creator has made no two faces alike, so no two\nminds, and probably no two creeds. We well know that among Unitarians\nthemselves there are strong shades of difference, as between Doctors\nPrice and Priestley, for example. So there may be peculiarities in your\ncreed and in mine. They are honestly formed without doubt. I do not\nwish to trouble the world with mine, nor to be troubled for them. These\naccounts are to be settled only with him who made us; and to him we leave\nit, with charity for all others, of whom, also, he is the only rightful\nand competent judge. I have little doubt that the whole of our country\nwill soon be rallied to the unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the\npure doctrines of Jesus also.\n\nIn saying to you so much, and without reserve, on a subject on which\nI never permit myself to go before the public, I know that I am safe\nagainst the infidelities which have so often betrayed my letters to the\nstrictures of those for whom they were not written, and to whom I never\nmeant to commit my peace. To yourself I wish every happiness, and will\nconclude, as you have done, in the same simple style of antiquity, _da\noperam ut valeas; hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes_.\n\n\nTO JUDGE ROANE.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 9, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am indebted for your favor of February 25th, and especially\nfor your friendly indulgence to my excuses for retiring from the polemical\nworld. I should not shrink from the post of duty, had not the decays of\nnature withdrawn me from the list of combatants. Great decline in the\nenergies of the body import naturally a corresponding wane of the mind,\nand a longing after tranquillity as the last and sweetest asylum of age.\nIt is a law of nature that the generations of men should give way, one\nto another, and I hope that the one now on the stage will preserve for\ntheir sons the political blessings delivered into their hands by their\nfathers. Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must\nexpect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption\nof principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be\never on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the\nday be kept off as long as possible. We see already germs of this, as\nmight be expected. But we are not the less bound to press against them.\nThe multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income,\ngrowth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the\nemployment of the pruning-knife; and I doubt not it will be employed;\ngood principles being as yet prevalent enough for that.\n\nThe great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like\ngravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance,\ngaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulphing\ninsidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds\nthem. The recent recall to first principles, however, by Colonel Taylor,\nby yourself, and now by Alexander Smith, will, I hope, be heard and\nobeyed, and that a temporary check will be effected. Yet be not weary\nof well doing. Let the eye of vigilance never be closed.\n\nLast and most portentous of all is the Missouri question. It is smeared\nover for the present; but its geographical demarcation is indelible.\nWhat it is to become, I see not; and leave to those who will live to\nsee it. The University will give employment to my remaining years, and\nquite enough for my senile faculties. It is the last act of usefulness\nI can render, and could I see it open I would not ask an hour more of\nlife. To you I hope many will still be given; and, certain they will\nall be employed for the good of our beloved country, I salute you with\nsentiments of especial friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO JUDGE ROANE.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 27, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have received through the hands of the Governor, Colonel\nTaylor's letter to you. It is with extreme reluctance that I permit\nmyself to usurp the office of an adviser of the public, what books they\nshould read, and what not. I yield, however, on this occasion to your\nwish and that of Colonel Taylor, and do what (with a single exception\nonly) I never did before, on the many similar applications made to me.\nOn reviewing my letters to Colonel Taylor and to Mr. Thweat, neither\nappeared exactly proper. Each contained matter which might give offence\nto the judges, without adding strength to the opinion. I have, therefore,\nout of the two, cooked up what may be called \"an extract of a letter from\nTh: J. to ----;\" but without saying it is published _with my consent_.\nThat would forever deprive me of the ground of declining the office of\na Reviewer of books in future cases. I sincerely wish the attention\nof the public may be drawn to the doctrines of the book; and if this\nself-styled extract may contribute to it, I shall be gratified. I salute\nyou with constant friendship and respect.\n\n\nEXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM TH: JEFFERSON TO ----.\n\nI have read Colonel Taylor's book of \"Constructions Construed,\" with\ngreat satisfaction, and, I will say, with edification; for I acknowledge\nit corrected some errors of opinion into which I had slidden without\nsufficient examination. It is the most logical retraction of our\ngovernments to the original and true principles of the constitution\ncreating them, which has appeared since the adoption of that instrument.\nI may not perhaps concur in all its opinions, great and small; for no\ntwo men ever thought alike on so many points. But on all its important\nquestions, it contains the true political faith, to which every catholic\nrepublican should steadfastly hold. It should be put into the hands\nof all our functionaries, authoritatively, as a standing instruction,\nand true exposition of our Constitution, as understood at the time we\nagreed to it. It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State\ngovernments are superior to the federal, or the federal to the States.\nThe people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of\ngovernment into two distinct departments, the leading characters of\nwhich are _foreign_ and domestic; and they have appointed for each a\ndistinct set of functionaries. These they have made co-ordinate, checking\nand balancing each other, like the three cardinal departments in the\nindividual States: each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to\nitself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to\nitself, or to its coparcenor in government. As independent, in fact, as\ndifferent nations, a spirit of forbearance and compromise, therefore,\nand not of encroachment and usurpation, is the healing balm of such a\nconstitution; and each party should prudently shrink from all approach\nto the line of demarcation, instead of rashly overleaping it, or throwing\ngrapples ahead to haul to hereafter. But, finally, the peculiar happiness\nof our blessed system is, that in differences of opinion between these\ndifferent sets of servants, the appeal is to neither, but to their\nemployers peaceably assembled by their representatives in Convention.\nThis is more rational than the _jus fortioris_, or the cannon's mouth,\nthe _ultima et sola ratio regum_.\n\n\nTO GENERAL DEARBORNE.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 17, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 8th came to hand yesterday evening. I\nhope you will never suppose your letters to be among those which are\ntroublesome to me. They are always welcome, and it is among my great\ncomforts to hear from my ancient colleagues, and to know that they are\nwell. The affectionate recollection of Mrs. Dearborne, cherished by our\nfamily, will ever render her health and happiness interesting to them.\nYou are so far astern of Mr. Adams and myself, that you must not yet\ntalk of old age. I am happy to hear of his good health. I think he will\noutlive us all, I mean the Declaration-men, although our senior since\nthe death of Colonel Floyd. It is a race in which I have no ambition to\nwin. Man, like the fruit he eats, has his period of ripeness. Like that,\ntoo, if he continues longer hanging to the stem, it is but an useless\nand unsightly appendage. I rejoice, with you that the State of Missouri\nis at length a member of our Union. Whether the question it excited\nis dead, or only sleepeth, I do not know. I see only that it has given\nresurrection to the Hartford convention men. They have had the address,\nby playing on the honest feelings of our former friends, to seduce them\nfrom their kindred spirits, and to borrow their weight into the federal\nscale. Desperate of regaining power under political distinctions, they\nhave adroitly wriggled into its seat under the auspices of morality, and\nare again in the ascendency from which their sins had hurled them. It\nis indeed of little consequence who governs us, if they sincerely and\nzealously cherish the principles of union and republicanism.\n\nI still believe that the Western extension of our confederacy will ensure\nits duration, by overruling local factions, which might shake a smaller\nassociation. But whatever may be the merit or demerit of that acquisition,\nI divide it with my colleagues, to whose councils I was indebted for a\ncourse of administration which, notwithstanding this late coalition of\nclay and brass, will, I hope, continue to receive the approbation of\nour country.\n\nThe portrait by Stewart was received in due time and good order, and\nclaims, for this difficult acquisition, the thanks of the family, who\njoin me in affectionate souvenirs of Mrs. Dearborne and yourself. My\nparticular salutations to both flow, as ever, from the heart, continual\nand warm.\n\n\nTO MR. C. HAMMOND.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 18, 1821.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of the 7th is just now received. The letter to which\nit refers was written by me with the sole view of recommending to the\nstudy of my fellow citizens a book which I considered as containing\nmore genuine doctrines on the subject of our government, and carrying\nus back more truly to its fundamental principles, than any one which\nhad been written since the adoption of our constitution. As confined\nto this object, I thought, and still think, its language as plain and\nintelligible as I can make it. But when we see inspired writings made to\nspeak whatever opposite controversialists wish them to say, we cannot\nourselves expect to find language incapable of similar distortion. My\nexpressions were general; their perversion is in their misapplication\nto a particular case. To test them truly, they should turn to the book\nwith whose opinion they profess to coincide. If the book establishes that\na State has no right to tax the monied property within its limits, or\nthat it can be called, as a party, to the bar of the federal judiciary,\nthen they may infer that these are my opinions. If no such doctrines\nare there, my letter does not authorize their imputation to me.\n\nIt has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from\nits expression, (although I do not choose to put it into a newspaper,\nnor, like a Priam in armor, offer myself its champion,) that the germ\nof dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the\nfederal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a\nscare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little\nto-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a\nthief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from\nthe States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this\nI am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in\nlittle as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of\nall power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government\non another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government\nfrom which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must\nbe either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. Our functionaries and theirs\nare wares from the same work-shop; made of the same materials, and by\nthe same hand. If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of\ntheir government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to\nweep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron,\nand the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his\ntrue historians.\n\nBut let me beseech you, Sir, not to let this letter get into a newspaper.\nTranquillity, at my age, is the supreme good of life. I think it a duty,\nand it is my earnest wish, to take no further part in public affairs; to\nleave them to the existing generation to whose turn they have fallen, and\nto resign the remains of a decaying body and mind to their protection.\nThe abuse of confidence by publishing my letters has cost me more than\nall other pains, and make me afraid to put pen to paper in a letter\nof sentiment. If I have done it frankly in answer to your letter, it\nis in full trust that I shall not be thrown by you into the arena of a\nnewspaper. I salute you with great respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 12, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am just returned from my other home, and shall within a\nweek go back to it for the rest of the autumn. I find here your favor\nof August 20th, and was before in arrear for that of May 19th. I cannot\nanswer, but join in, your question of May 19th. Are we to surrender\nthe pleasing hopes of seeing improvement in the moral and intellectual\ncondition of man? The events of Naples and Piedmont cast a gloomy cloud\nover that hope, and Spain and Portugal are not beyond jeopardy. And what\nare we to think of this northern triumvirate, arming their nations to\ndictate despotisms to the rest of the world? And the evident connivance\nof England, as the price of secret stipulations for continental armies,\nif her own should take side with her malcontent and pulverized people?\nAnd what of the poor Greeks, and their small chance of amelioration even\nif the hypocritical Autocrat should take them under the iron cover of\nhis Ukazes. Would this be lighter or safer than that of the Turk? These,\nmy dear friend, are speculations for the new generation, as, before they\nwill be resolved, you and I must join our deceased brother Floyd. Yet\nI will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without a hope\nthat light and liberty are on steady advance. We have seen, indeed,\nonce within the records of history, a complete eclipse of the human\nmind continuing for centuries. And this, too, by swarms of the same\nnorthern barbarians, conquering and taking possession of the countries\nand governments of the civilized world. Should this be again attempted,\nshould the same northern hordes, allured again by the corn, wine, and\noil of the south, be able again to settle their swarms in the countries\nof their growth, the art of printing alone, and the vast dissemination\nof books, will maintain the mind where it is, and raise the conquering\nruffians to the level of the conquered, instead of degrading these to\nthat of their conquerors. And even should the cloud of barbarism and\ndespotism again obscure the science and liberties of Europe, this country\nremains to preserve and restore light and liberty to them. In short,\nthe flames kindled on the 4th of July, 1776, have spread over too much\nof the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on\nthe contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.\n\nI think with you that there should be a school of instruction for our\nnavy as well as artillery; and I do not see why the same establishment\nmight not suffice for both. Both require the same basis of general\nmathematics, adding projectiles and fortifications for the artillery\nexclusively, and astronomy and theory of navigation exclusively for the\nnaval students. Berout conducted both schools in France, and has left\nus the best book extant for their joint and separate instruction. It\nought not to require a separate professor.\n\nA 4th of July oration delivered in the town of Milford, in your State,\ngives to Samuel Chase the credit of having \"first started the cry of\nindependence in the ears of his countrymen.\" Do you remember anything\nof this? I do not. I have no doubt it was uttered in Massachusetts even\nbefore it was by Thomas Paine. But certainly I never considered Samuel\nChase as foremost, or even forward in that hallowed cry. I know that\nMaryland hung heavily on our backs, and that Chase, although first named,\nwas not most in unison with us of that delegation, either in politics\nor morals, _et c'est ainsi que l'on ecrit l'histoire_!\n\nYour doubt of the legitimacy of the word _gloriola_, is resolved by\nCicero, who, in his letter to Lucceius expresses a wish \"_ut nos metipsi\nvivi gloriola nostra perfruamur_.\" Affectionately adieu.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n MONTEZILLO, September 24, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I thank you for your favor of the 12th instant. Hope springs\neternal. Eight millions of Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and\nglorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful\nas he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Musslemen expect another\nprophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the\nwhole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for\na millennium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years over the\nwhole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another and final\nincarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know\nnot what. All these hopes are founded on real or pretended revelation.\nThe modern Greeks, too, it seems, hope for a deliverer who is to produce\nthem--the Themistocleses and Demostheneses--the Platos and Aristotles--the\nSolons and Lycurguses. On what prophecies they found their belief, I\nknow not. You and I hope for splendid improvements in human society, and\nvast amelioration in the condition of mankind. Our faith may be supposed\nby more rational arguments than any of the former, I own that I am very\nsanguine in the belief of them, as I hope and believe you are, and your\nreasoning in your letter confirmed me in them.\n\nAs Brother Floyd has gone, I am now the oldest of the little Congressional\ngroup that remain. I may therefore rationally hope to be the first to\ndepart; and as you are the youngest and most energetic in mind and body,\nyou may therefore rationally hope to be the last to take your flight,\nand to rake up the fire as father Sherman, who always staid to the last,\nand commonly two days afterwards, used to say, \"that it was his office\nto sit up and rake the ashes over the coals.\" And much satisfaction may\nyou have in your office.\n\nThe cholera morbus has done wonders in St. Helena and in London. We shall\nsoon hear of a negotiation for a second wife. Whether in the body, or\nout of the body, I shall always be your friend.\n\nThe anecdote of Mr. Chase, contained in the oration delivered at Milford,\nmust be an idle rumor, for neither the State of Maryland, nor of their\ndelegates, were very early in their conviction of the necessity of\nindependence, nor very forward in promoting it. The old speaker Tilghman,\nJohnson, Chase, and Paca, were steady in promoting resistance, but after\nsome of them, Maryland sent one, at least, of the most turbulent Tories\nthat ever came to Congress.\n\n\nTO ----.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 28, 1821.\n\nSIR,--The government of the United States, at a very early period, when\nestablishing its tariff on foreign importations, were very much guided\nin their selection of objects by a desire to encourage manufactures\nwithin ourselves. Among other articles then selected were books, on\nthe importation of which a duty of fifteen per cent, was imposed,\nwhich, by ordinary custom house charges, amount to about eighteen per\ncent., and adding the importing booksellers profit on this, becomes\nabout twenty-seven per cent. This was useful at first, perhaps, towards\nexciting our printers to make a beginning in that business here. But\nit is found in experience that the home demand is not sufficient to\njustify the re-printing any but the most popular English works, and\ncheap editions of a few of the classics for schools. For the editions of\nvalue, enriched by notes, commentaries, &c., and for books in foreign\nliving languages, the demand here is too small and sparse to reimburse\nthe expense of re-printing them. None of these, therefore, are printed\nhere, and the duty on them becomes consequently not a protecting, but\nreally a prohibitory one. It makes a very serious addition to the price\nof the book, and falls chiefly on a description of persons little able\nto meet it. Students who are destined for professional callings, as\nmost of our scholars are, are barely able for the most part to meet\nthe expenses of tuition. The addition of eighteen or twenty-seven per\ncent. on the books necessary for their instruction, amounts often to a\nprohibition as to them. For want of these aids, which are open to the\nstudents of all other nations but our own, they enter on their course\non a very unequal footing with those of the same professions in foreign\ncountries, and our citizens at large, too, who employ them, do not derive\nfrom that employment all the benefit which higher qualifications would\ngive them. It is true that no duty is required on books imported for\nseminaries of learning, but these, locked up in libraries, can be of no\navail to the practical man when he wishes a recurrence to them for the\nuses of life. Of many important books of reference there is not perhaps\na single copy in the United States; of others but a few, and these too\ndistant often to be accessible to scholars generally. It is believed,\ntherefore, that if the attention of Congress could be drawn to this\narticle, they would, in their wisdom, see its impolicy. Science is more\nimportant in a republican than in any other government. And in an infant\ncountry like ours, we must much depend for improvement on the science of\nother countries, longer established, possessing better means, and more\nadvanced than we are. To prohibit us from the benefit of foreign light,\nis to consign us to long darkness.\n\nThe northern seminaries following with parental solicitude the interests\nof their elev\u00e8s in the course for which they have prepared them, propose\nto petition Congress on this subject, and wish for the co\u00f6peration\nof those of the south and west, and I have been requested, as more\nconvenient in position than they are, to solicit that co\u00f6peration. Having\nno personal acquaintance with those who are charged with the direction\nof the college of ---- ----, I do not know how more effectually to\ncommunicate these views to them, than by availing myself of the knowledge\nI have of your zeal for the happiness and improvement of our country.\nI take the liberty, therefore, of requesting you to place the subject\nbefore the proper authorities of that institution, and if they approve\nthe measure, to solicit a concurrent proceeding on their part to carry\nit into effect. Besides petitioning Congress, I would propose that they\naddress in their corporate capacity, a letter to their delegates and\nsenators in Congress, soliciting their best endeavors to obtain the\nrepeal of the duty on imported books. I cannot but suppose that such an\napplication will be respected by them, and will engage their votes and\nendeavors to effect an object so reasonable. A conviction that science\nis important to the preservation of our republican government, and that\nit is also essential to its protection against foreign power, induces\nme, on this occasion, to step beyond the limits of that retirement to\nwhich age and inclination equally dispose me, and I am without a doubt\nthat the same considerations will induce you to excuse the trouble I\npropose to you, and that you will kindly accept the assurance of my high\nrespect and esteem.\n\n\nTO NATHANIEL MACON.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 23, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Absence at an occasional but distant residence, prevented my\nreceiving your friendly letter of October 20th till three days ago. A\nline from my good old friends is like balm to my soul. You ask me what\nyou are to do with my letter of September 19th? I wrote it, my dear\nSir, with no other view than to pour my thoughts into your bosom. I knew\nthey would be safe there, and I believed they would be welcome. But if\nyou think, as you say, that \"good may be done by showing it to a few\n_well-tried friends_,\" I have no objection to that, but ultimately you\ncannot do better than to throw it into the fire.\n\nMy confidence, as you kindly observed, has been often abused by the\npublication of my letters for the purposes of interest or vanity, and\nit has been to me the source of much pain to be exhibited before the\npublic in forms not meant for them. I receive letters expressed in the\nmost friendly and even affectionate terms, sometimes, perhaps, asking\nmy opinion on some subject. I cannot refuse to answer such letters,\nnor can I do it dryly and suspiciously. Among a score or two of such\ncorrespondents, one perhaps betrays me. I feel it mortifyingly, but\nconclude I had better incur one treachery than offend a score or two\nof good people. I sometimes expressly desire that my letter may not be\npublished; but this is so like requesting a man not to steal or cheat,\nthat I am ashamed of it after I have done it.\n\nOur government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road\nit will pass to destruction, to-wit: by consolidation first, and then\ncorruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will\nbe the federal judiciary; the two other branches, the corrupting and\ncorrupted instruments. I fear an explosion in our State Legislature. I\nwish they may restrain themselves to a strong but temperate protestation.\nVirginia is not at present in favor with her co-States. An opposition\nheaded by her would determine all the anti-Missouri States to take the\ncontrary side. She had better lie by, therefore, till the shoe shall\npinch an eastern State. Let the cry be first raised from that quarter,\nand we may fall into it with effect. But I fear our eastern associates\nwish for consolidation, in which they would be joined by the smaller\nStates generally. But, with one foot in the grave, I have no right to\nmeddle with these things. Ever and affectionately yours.\n\n\nTO ----.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 29, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--You have often gratified me by your astronomical\ncommunications, and I am now about to amuse you with one of mine.\nBut I must first explain the circumstances which have drawn me into a\nspeculation so foreign to the path of life which the times in which I\nhave lived, more than my own inclinations have led me to pursue.\n\nI had long deemed it incumbent on the authorities of our country, to\nhave the great western wilderness beyond the Mississippi, explored, to\nmake known its geography, its natural productions, its general character\nand inhabitants. Two attempts which I had myself made formerly, before\nthe country was ours, the one from west to east, the other from east to\nwest, had both proved abortive. When called to the administration of\nthe general government, I made this an object of early attention, and\nproposed it to Congress. They voted a sum of five thousand dollars for\nits execution, and I placed Captain Lewis at the head of the enterprise.\nNo man within the range of my acquaintance, united so many of the\nqualifications necessary for its successful direction. But he had not\nreceived such an astronomical education as might enable him to give us\nthe geography of the country with the precision desired. The Missouri and\nColumbia, which were to constitute the tract of his journey, were rivers\nwhich varied little in their progressive latitudes, but changed their\nlongitudes rapidly and at every step. To qualify him for making these\nobservations, so important to the value of the enterprise, I encouraged\nhim to apply himself to this particular object, and gave him letters to\nDoctor Patterson and Mr. Ellicott, requesting them to instruct him in the\nnecessary processes. Those for the longitude would of course be founded\non the lunar distances. But as these require essentially the aid of a\ntime-keeper, it occurred to me that during a journey of two, three, or\nfour years, exposed to so many accidents as himself and the instrument\nwould be, we might expect with certainty that it would become deranged,\nand in a desert country where it could not be repaired. I thought it\nthen highly important that some means of observation should be furnished\nhim, if any could be, which should be practicable and competent to\nascertain his longitudes in that event. The equatorial occurred to myself\nas the most promising substitute. I observed only that Ramsden, in his\nexplanation of its uses, and particularly that of finding the longitude\nat land, still required his observer to have the aid of a time-keeper.\nBut this cannot be necessary, for the margin of the equatorial circle of\nthis instrument being divided into time by hours, minutes, and seconds,\nsupplies the main functions of the time-keeper, and for measuring merely\nthe interval of the observations, is such as not to be neglected. A\nportable pendulum, for counting, by an assistant, would fully answer\nthat purpose. I suggested my fears to several of our best astronomical\nfriends, and my wishes that other processes should be furnished him,\nif any could be, which might guard us ultimately from disappointment.\nSeveral other methods were proposed, but all requiring the use of a\ntime-keeper. That of the equatorial being recommended by none, and other\nduties refusing me time for protracted consultations, I relinquished the\nidea for that occasion. But, if a sound one, it should not be abandoned.\nThose deserts are yet to be explored, and their geography given to the\nworld and ourselves with a correctness worthy of the science of the age.\nThe acquisition of the country before Captain Lewis' departure facilitated\nour enterprise, but his time-keeper failed early in his journey. His\ndependence, then, was on the compass and log-line, with the correction\nof latitudes only; and the true longitudes of the different points of\nthe Missouri, of the Stony Mountains, the Columbia and Pacific, at its\nmouth, remain yet to be obtained by future enterprise.\n\nThe circumstance which occasions a recurrence of the subject to my mind\nat this time particularly is this: our legislature, some time ago, came\nto a determination that an accurate map should be made of our State. The\nlate John Wood was employed on it. Its first elements are prepared by maps\nof the several counties. But these have been made by chain and compass\nonly, which suppose the surface of the earth to be a plane. To fit them\ntogether, they must be accommodated to its real spherical surface; and\nthis can be done only by observations of latitude and longitude, taken at\ndifferent points of the area to which they are to be reduced. It is true\nthat in the lower and more populous parts of the State, the method of\nlunar distances by the circle or sextant, and time-keeper, may be used;\nbecause those parts furnish means of repairing or replacing a deranged\ntime-keeper. But the deserts beyond the Alleghany are as destitute of\nresource in that case, as those of the Missouri. The question then recurs\nwhether the equatorial, without the auxiliary of a time-keeper, is not\ncompetent to the ascertainment of longitudes at land, where a fixed\nmeridian can always be obtained? and whether indeed it may not everywhere\nat land, be a readier and preferable instrument for that purpose? To\nthese questions I ask your attentions; and to show the grounds on which\nI entertain the opinion myself, I will briefly explain the principles\nof the process, and the peculiarities of the instrument which give it\nthe competence I ascribe to it. And should you concur in the opinion,\nI will further ask you to notice any particular circumstances claiming\nattention in the process, and the corrections which the observations may\nnecessarily require. As to myself, I am an astronomer of theory only,\nlittle versed in practical observations, and the minute attentions and\ncorrections they require. I proceed now to the explanation.\n\nA method of finding the longitude of a place _at land, without a\ntime-keeper_.\n\nIf two persons, at different points of the same hemisphere, (as Greenwich\nand Washington, for example,) observe the same celestial phenomenon, at\nthe same instant of time, the difference of the times marked by their\nrespective clocks is the difference of their longitudes, or the distance\nbetween their meridians. To catch with precision the same instant of\ntime for these simultaneous observations, the moon's motion in her\norbit is the best element; her change of place (about a half second of\nspace in a second of time) is rapid enough to be ascertained by a good\ninstrument with sufficient precision for the object. But suppose the\nobserver at Washington, or in a desert, to be without a time-keeper;\nthe equatorial is the instrument to be used in that case. Again, we have\nsupposed a contemporaneous observer at Greenwich. But his functions may\nbe supplied by the nautical almanac, adapted to that place, and enabling\nus to calculate for any instant of time the meridian distances there of\nthe heavenly bodies necessary to be observed for this purpose.\n\nThe observer at Washington, choosing the time when their position is\nsuitable, is to adjust his equatorial to his meridian, to his latitude,\nand to the plane of his horizon; or if he is in a desert where neither\nmeridian nor latitude is yet ascertained, the advantages of this noble\ninstrument are, that it enables him to find both in the course of a\nfew hours. Thus prepared, let him ascertain by observation the right\nascension of the moon from that of a known star, or their horary distance;\nand, at the same instant, her horary distance from his meridian. Her\nright ascension at the instant thus ascertained, enter with that of\nthe nautical almanac, and calculate, by its tables, what was her horary\ndistance from the meridian of Greenwich at the instant she had attained\nthat point of right ascension, or that horary distance from the same\nstar. The addition of these meridian distances, if the moon was between\nthe two meridians, or the subtraction of the lesser from the greater, if\nshe was on the same side of both, is the differences of their longitudes.\n\nThis general theory admits different cases, of which the observer may\navail himself, according to the particular position of the heavenly\nbodies at the moment of observation.\n\nCase 1st. When the moon is on his meridian, or on that of Greenwich.\n\nSecond. When the star is on either meridian.\n\nThird. When the moon and star are on the same side of his meridian.\n\nFourth. When they are on different sides.\n\nFor instantaneousness of observation, the equatorial has great advantage\nover the circle or sextant; for being truly placed in the meridian\nbeforehand, the telescope may be directed sufficiently in advance of\nthe moon's motion, for time to note its place on the equatorial circle,\nbefore she attains that point. Then observe, until her limb touches\nthe cross-hairs; and in that instant direct the telescope to the star;\nthat completes the observation, and the place of the star may be read\nat leisure. The apparatus for correcting the effects of refraction and\nparallax, which is fixed on the eye-tube of the telescope, saves time\nby rendering the notation of altitudes unnecessary, and dispenses with\nthe use of either a time-keeper or portable pendulum.\n\nI have observed that, if placed in a desert where neither meridian nor\nlatitude is yet ascertained, the equatorial enables the observer to\nfind both in a few hours. For the latitude, adjust by the cross-levels\nthe azimuth plane of the instrument to the horizon of the place. Bring\ndown the equatorial plane to an exact parallelism with it, its pole then\nbecoming vertical. By the nut and pinion commanding it, and by that of\nthe semi-circle of declination, direct the telescope to the sun. Follow\nits path with the telescope by the combined use of these two pinions,\nand when it has attained its greatest altitude, calculate the latitude\nas when taken by a sextant.\n\nFor finding the meridian, set the azimuth circle to the horizon, elevate\nthe equatorial circle to the complement of the latitude, and fix it by\nthe clamp and tightening screw of the two brass segments of arches below.\nBy the declination semicircle set the telescope to the sun's declination\nof the moment. Turn the instrument towards the meridian by guess, and\nby the combined movement of the equatorial and azimuth circles direct\nthe telescope to the sun, then by the pinion of the equatorial alone,\nfollow the path of the sun with the telescope. If it swerves from that\npath, turn the azimuth circle until it shall follow the sun accurately.\nA distant stake or tree should mark the meridian, to guard against its\nloss by any accidental jostle of the instrument. The 12 o'clock line will\nthen be in the true meridian, and the axis of the equatorial circle will\nbe parallel with that of the earth. The instrument is then in its true\nposition for the observations of the night. To the competence and the\nadvantages of this method, I will only add that these instruments are\nhigh-priced. Mine cost thirty-five guineas in Ramsden's shop, a little\nbefore the Revolution. I will lengthen my letter, already too long, only\nby assurances of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO ---- NICHOLAS.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 11, 1821.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your letter of December the 19th places me under a dilemma,\nwhich I cannot solve but by an exposition of the naked truth. I would\nhave wished this rather to have remained as hitherto, without inquiry;\nbut your inquiries have a right to be answered. I will do it as exactly\nas the great lapse of time and a waning memory will enable me. I may\nmisremember indifferent circumstances, but can be right in substance.\n\nAt the time when the republicans of our country were so much alarmed\nat the proceedings of the federal ascendency in Congress, in the\nexecutive and the judiciary departments, it became a matter of serious\nconsideration how head could be made against their enterprises on the\nconstitution. The leading republicans in Congress found themselves of no\nuse there, brow-beaten, as they were, by a bold and overwhelming majority.\nThey concluded to retire from that field, take a stand in the State\nlegislatures, and endeavor there to arrest their progress. The alien and\nsedition laws furnished the particular occasion. The sympathy between\nVirginia and Kentucky was more cordial, and more intimately confidential,\nthan between any other two States of republican policy. Mr. Madison came\ninto the Virginia legislature. I was then in the Vice-Presidency, and\ncould not leave my station. But your father, Colonel W. C. Nicholas,\nand myself happening to be together, the engaging the co-operation of\nKentucky in an energetic protestation against the constitutionality of\nthose laws, became a subject of consultation. Those gentlemen pressed me\nstrongly to sketch resolutions for that purpose, your father undertaking\nto introduce them to that legislature, with a solemn assurance, which I\nstrictly required, that it should not be known from what quarter they\ncame. I drew and delivered them to him, and in keeping their origin\nsecret, he fulfilled his pledge of honor. Some years after this, Colonel\nNicholas asked me if I would have any objection to its being known that\nI had drawn them. I pointedly enjoined that it should not. Whether he had\nunguardedly intimated it before to any one, I know not; but I afterwards\nobserved in the papers repeated imputations of them to me; on which,\nas has been my practice on all occasions of imputation, I have observed\nentire silence. The question, indeed, has never before been put to me,\nnor should I answer it to any other than yourself; seeing no good end to\nbe proposed by it, and the desire of tranquillity inducing with me a wish\nto be withdrawn from public notice. Your father's zeal and talents were\ntoo well known, to derive any additional distinction from the penning\nthese resolutions. That circumstance, surely, was of far less merit than\nthe proposing and carrying them through the legislature of his State.\nThe only fact in this statement, on which my memory is not distinct, is\nthe time and occasion of the consultation with your father and Colonel\nNicholas. It took place here I know; but whether any other person was\npresent, or communicated with, is my doubt. I think Mr. Madison was\neither with us, or consulted, but my memory is uncertain as to minute\ndetails.\n\nI fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis, with this difference\nonly, that the judiciary branch is alone and single handed in the present\nassaults on the constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly,\nas from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. May you and your\ncotemporaries meet them with the same determination and effect, as your\nfather and his did the alien and sedition laws, and preserve inviolate\na constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will\nprove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth. With these\nprayers, accept those for your own happiness and prosperity.\n\n\nTO MESSRS. GEORGE W. SUMMERS AND JOHN B. GARLAND.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 27, 1822.\n\nGENTLEMEN,--I have received your favor of the 18th, and am duly sensible\nof the honor done my name by its association with the institution formed\nin your college for improvement in the art of speaking. The efforts of the\nmembers will, I trust, give a just reputation to the society and reflect\non its name the honor which it cannot derive from it. In a country and\ngovernment like ours, eloquence is a powerful instrument, well worthy of\nthe special pursuit of our youth. Models, indeed, of chaste and classical\noratory are truly too rare with us; nor do I recollect any remarkable in\nEngland. Among the ancients the most perfect specimens are perhaps to be\nfound in Livy, Sallust and Tacitus. Their pith and brevity constitute\nperfection itself for an audience of sages, on whom froth and fancy\nwould be lost in air. But in ordinary cases, and with us particularly,\nmore development is necessary. For senatorial eloquence, Demosthenes is\nthe finest model; for the bar, Cicero. The former had more logic, the\nlatter more imagination.\n\nOf the eloquence of the pen we have fine samples in English. Robertson,\nSterne, Addison, are of the first merit in the different characters of\ncomposition. Hume, in the circumstance of style is equal to any; but\nhis tory principles spread a cloud over his many and great excellencies.\nThe charms of his style and matter have made tories of all England, and\ndoubtful republicans here.\n\nYou say that any advice which I could give you would be acceptable. But,\nfor this, you cannot be in better hands than of the worthy professors of\nyour own college. Their counsels would, I am sure, embrace everything\nI could offer. It will not, however, be a work of mere supereorgation\nif it will gratify you, and will furnish a stronger proof of my desire\nto encourage you in your laudable dispositions. Some thirty-six or\nthirty-seven years ago, I had a nephew, the late Peter Carr, whose\neducation I directed, and had much at heart his future fortunes. Residing\nabroad at the time in public service, my counsels to him were necessarily\ncommunicated by letters. Searching among my papers I find a letter\nwritten to him, and conveying such advice as I thought suitable to the\nparticular period of his age and education. He was then about fifteen, and\nhad made some progress in classical reading. As your present situation\nmay be somewhat similar, you may find in that letter some things worth\nremembering. I enclose you a copy therefore. It was written in haste,\nunder the pressure of official labors, and with no view of being ever\nseen but by himself. It might otherwise have been made more correct in\nstyle and matter. But such as it is, I place it at your service, and\npray you to receive it merely as a compliance with your own request,\nand as a proof of my good will and of my best wishes for your success in\nthe career of life for which you are so worthily and laudably preparing\nyourselves.\n\n\nTO MR. EDWARD EVERETT, OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 2, 1822.\n\nI am thankful to you, Sir, for the very edifying view of Europe which\nyou have been so kind as to send me. Tossed at random by the newspapers\non an ocean of uncertainties and falsehoods, it is joyful at times to\ncatch the glimmering of a beacon which shows us truly where we are. De\nPradt's Europe had some effect in this way; but the less as the author\nwas less known in character. The views presented by your brother unite\nour confidence with the soundness of his observation and information. I\nhave read the work with great avidity and profit, and have found my ideas\nof Europe in general, rallied by it to points of good satisfaction. In\nthe single chapter on England only, where his theories are new, if we\ncannot suddenly give up all our old notions, he furnishes us abundant\nmatter for reflection and a revisal of them. I have long considered\nthe present crisis of England, and the origin of the evils which are\nlowering over her, as produced by enormous excess of her expenditures\nbeyond her income. To pay even the interest of the debt contracted,\nshe is obliged to take from the industrious so much of their earnings,\nas not to leave enough for their backs and bellies. They are daily,\ntherefore, passing over to the pauper-list, to subsist on the declining\nmeans of those still holding up, and when these also shall be exhausted,\nwhat next? Reformation cannot remedy this. It could only prevent its\nrecurrence when once relieved from the debt. To effect that relief I\nsee but one possible and just course. Considering the funded and real\nproperty as equal, and the debt as much of the one as the other, for\nthe holder of property to give up one-half to those of the funds, and\nthe latter to the nation the whole of what it owes them. But this the\nnature of man forbids us to expect without blows, and blows will decide\nit by a promiscuous sacrifice of life and property. The debt thus, or\notherwise, extinguished, a _real_ representation introduced into the\ngovernment of either property or people, or of both, renouncing eternal\nwar, restraining future expenses to future income, and breaking up forever\nthe consuming circle of extravagance, debt, insolvency, and revolution,\nthe island would then again be in the degree of force which nature has\nmeasured out to it, of respectable station in the scale of nations, but\nnot at their head. I sincerely wish she could peaceably get into this\nstate of being, as the present prospects of southern Europe seem to need\nthe acquisition of new weights in their balance, rather than the loss\nof old ones. I set additional value on this volume, inasmuch as it has\nprocured me the occasion of expressing to you my high estimation of your\ncharacter, the interest with which I look to it as an American, and the\ngreat esteem and respect with which I beg leave to salute you.\n\n\nTO JEDEDIAH MORSE.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 6, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I have duly received your letter of February the 16th, and have now\nto express my sense of the honorable station proposed to my ex-brethren\nand myself, in the constitution of the society for the civilization and\nimprovement of the Indian tribes. The object too expressed, as that of the\nassociation, is one which I have ever had much at heart, and never omitted\nan occasion of promoting while I have been in situations to do it with\neffect, and nothing, even now, in the calm of age and retirement, would\nexcite in me a more lively interest than an approvable plan of raising\nthat respectable and unfortunate people from the state of physical and\nmoral abjection, to which they have been reduced by circumstances foreign\nto them. That the plan now proposed is entitled to unmixed approbation,\nI am not prepared to say, after mature consideration, and with all the\npartialities which its professed object would rightfully claim from me.\n\nI shall not undertake to draw the line of demarcation between private\nassociations of laudable views and unimposing numbers, and those whose\nmagnitude may rivalize and jeopardize the march of regular government.\nYet such a line does exist. I have seen the days, they were those which\npreceded the revolution, when even this last and perilous engine became\nnecessary; but they were days which no man would wish to see a second\ntime. That was the case where the regular authorities of the government\nhad combined against the rights of the people, and no means of correction\nremained to them but to organize a collateral power, which, with their\nsupport, might rescue and secure their violated rights. But such is\nnot the case with our government. We need hazard no collateral power,\nwhich, by a change of its original views, and assumption of others we\nknow not how virtuous or how mischievous, would be ready organized and\nin force sufficient to shake the established foundations of society,\nand endanger its peace and the principles on which it is based. Is not\nthe machine now proposed of this gigantic stature? It is to consist of\nthe ex-Presidents of the United States, the Vice President, the Heads\nof all the executive departments, the members of the supreme judiciary,\nthe Governors of the several States and territories, all the members\nof both Houses of Congress, all the general officers of the army, the\ncommissioners of the navy, all Presidents and Professors of colleges\nand theological seminaries, all the clergy of the United States, the\nPresidents and Secretaries of all associations having relation to\nIndians, all commanding officers within or near Indian territories, all\nIndian superintendents and agents; all these _ex officio_; and as many\nprivate individuals as will pay a certain price for membership. Observe,\ntoo, that the clergy will constitute[15] nineteen twentieths of this\nassociation, and, by the law of the majority, may command the twentieth\npart, which, composed of all the high authorities of the United States,\ncivil and military, may be outvoted and wielded by the nineteen parts\nwith uncontrollable power, both as to purpose and process. Can this\nformidable array be reviewed without dismay? It will be said, that in\nthis association will be all the confidential officers of the government;\nthe choice of the people themselves. No man on earth has more implicit\nconfidence than myself in the integrity and discretion of this chosen\nband of servants. But is confidence or discretion, or is _strict limit_,\nthe principle of our constitution? It will comprehend, indeed, all the\nfunctionaries of the government; but seceded from their constitutional\nstations as guardians of the nation, and acting not by the laws of\ntheir station, but by those of a voluntary society, having no limit to\ntheir purposes but the same will which constitutes their existence. It\nwill be the authorities of the people and all influential characters\nfrom among them, arrayed on one side, and on the other, the people\nthemselves deserted by their leaders. It is a fearful array. It will be\nsaid that these are imaginary fears. I know they are so at present. I\nknow it is as impossible for these agents of our choice and unbounded\nconfidence, to harbor machinations against the adored principles of our\nconstitution, as for gravity to change its direction, and gravid bodies\nto mount upwards. The fears are indeed imaginary, but the example is\n_real_. Under its authority, as a precedent, future associations will\narise with objects at which we should shudder at this time. The society\nof Jacobins, in another country, was instituted on principles and views\nas virtuous as ever kindled the hearts of patriots. It was the pure\npatriotism of their purposes which extended their association to the\nlimits of the nation, and rendered their power within it boundless; and\nit was this power which degenerated their principles and practices to\nsuch enormities as never before could have been imagined. Yet these were\nmen, and we and our descendants will be no more. The present is a case\nwhere, if ever, we are to guard against ourselves; not against ourselves\nas we are, but as we may be; for who can now imagine what we may become\nunder circumstances not now imaginable? The object of this institution,\nseems to require so hazardous an example as little as any which could be\nproposed. The government is, at this time, going on with the process of\ncivilizing the Indians, on a plan probably as promising as any one of us\nis able to devise, and with resources more competent than we could expect\nto command by voluntary taxation. Is it that the new characters called\ninto association with those of the government, are wiser than these? Is\nit that a plan originated by a meeting of private individuals is better\nthan that prepared by the concentrated wisdom of the nation, of men not\nself-chosen, but clothed with the full confidence of the people? Is it\nthat there is no danger that a new authority, marching, independently,\nalong side of the government, in the same line and to the same object,\nmay not produce collision, may not thwart and obstruct the operations of\nthe government, or wrest the object entirely from their hands? Might we\nnot as well appoint a committee for each department of the government,\nto counsel and direct its head separately, as volunteer ourselves to\ncounsel and direct the whole, in mass? And might we not do it as well\nfor their foreign, their fiscal, and their military, as for their Indian\naffairs? And how many societies, auxiliary to the government, may we\nexpect to see spring up, in imitation of this, offering to associate\nthemselves in this and that of its functions? In a word, why not take\nthe government out of its constitutional hands, associate them indeed\nwith us, to preserve a semblance that the acts are theirs, but insuring\nthem to be our own by allowing them a minor vote only.\n\nThese considerations have impressed my mind with a force so irresistible,\nthat (in duty bound to answer your polite letter, without which I should\nnot have obtruded an opinion) I have not been able to withhold the\nexpression of them. Not knowing the individuals who have proposed this\nplan, I cannot be conceived as entertaining personal disrespect for them.\nOn the contrary, I see in the printed list persons for whom I cherish\nsentiments of sincere friendship, and others, for whose opinions and\npurity of purpose I have the highest respect. Yet thinking as I do, that\nthis association is unnecessary; that the government is proceeding to\nthe same object under control of the law; that they are competent to it\nin wisdom, in means, and inclination; that this association, this wheel\nwithin a wheel, is more likely to produce collision than aid; and that\nit is, in its magnitude, of dangerous example; I am bound to say, that,\nas a dutiful citizen, I cannot in conscience become a member of this\nsociety, possessing as it does my entire confidence in the integrity\nof its views. I feel with awe the weight of opinion to which I may be\nopposed, and that, for myself, I have need to ask the indulgence of a\nbelief that the opinion I have given is the best result I can deduce from\nmy own reason and experience, and that it is sincerely conscientious.\nRepeating, therefore, my just acknowledgments for the honor proposed to\nme, I beg leave to add the assurances to the society and yourself of my\nhighest confidence and consideration.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [15] The clergy of the United States may probably be\n estimated at eight thousand. The residue of this society\n at four hundred; but if the former number be halved, the\n reasoning will be the same.\n\n\nTO GENERAL BRECKENRIDGE.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 9, 1822.\n\nDEAR GENERAL,--Your favor of March 28th was received on the 7th instant.\nWe failed in having a quorum on the 1st. Mr. Johnson and General Taylor\nwere laboring for Lithgow in Richmond, and Mr. Madison was unwell. On the\nscore of business it was immaterial, as there was not a single measure\nto be proposed. The loss was of the gratification of meeting in society\nwith those whom we esteem. This is the valuable effect of our semi-annual\nmeetings, jubilees, in fact, for feasting the mind and fostering the\nbest affections of the heart towards those who merit them.\n\nThe four rows of buildings of accommodation are so nearly completed, that\nthey are certain of being entirely so in the course of the summer; and\nour funds, as you have seen stated in our last Report, are sufficient\nto meet the expense, except that the delays in collecting the arrears of\nsubscriptions oblige us to borrow temporarily from this year's annuity,\nwhich, according to that Report, had another destination. These buildings\ndone, we are to rest on our oars, and passively await the will of the\nlegislature. Our future course is a plain one. We have proceeded from\nthe beginning on the sound determination to finish the buildings before\nopening the institution; because, once opened, all its funds will be\nabsorbed by professors' salaries, &c., and nothing remain ever to finish\nthe buildings. And we have thought it better to begin two or three years\nlater, in the full extent proposed, than to open, and go on forever, with\na half-way establishment. Of the wisdom of this proceeding, and of its\ngreater good to the public finally, I cannot a moment doubt. Our part\nthen is to pursue with steadiness what is right, turning neither to right\nnor left for the intrigues or popular delusions of the day, assured that\nthe public approbation will in the end be with us. The councils of the\nlegislature, at their late session, were poisoned unfortunately by the\nquestion of the seat of government, and the consequent jealousies of our\nviews in erecting the large building still wanting. This lost us some\nfriends who feel a sincere interest in favor of the University, but a\nstronger one in the question respecting the seat of government. They seem\nnot to have considered that the seat of the government, and that of the\nUniversity, are incompatible with one another; that if the former were to\ncome here, the latter must be removed. Even Oxford and Cambridge placed\nin the middle of London, they would be deserted as seats of learning,\nand as proper places for training youth. These groundless jealousies,\nit is to be hoped, will be dissipated by sober reflection, during the\nseparation of the members; and they will perceive, before their next\nmeeting, that the large building, without which the institution cannot\nproceed, has nothing to do with the question of the seat of government.\nIf, however, the ensuing session should still refuse their patronage,\na second or a third will think better, and result finally in fulfilling\nthe object of our aim, the securing to our country a full and perpetual\ninstitution for all the useful sciences; one which will restore us to\nour former station in the confederacy. It may be a year or two later\nindeed; but it will replace us in full grade, and not leave us among\nthe mere subalterns of the league. Patience and steady perseverance on\nour part will secure the blessed end. If we shrink, it is gone forever.\nOur autumnal meeting will be interesting. The question will be whether\nwe shall relinquish the scale of a real University, the rallying centre\nof the South and the West, or let it sink to that of a common academy.\nI hope you will be with us, and give us the benefit of your firm and\nenlarged views. I am not at all disheartened with what has passed, nor\ndisposed to give up the ship. We have only to lie still, to do and say\nnothing, and firmly avoid opening. The public opinion is advancing. It\nis coming to our aid, and will force the institution on to consummation.\nThe numbers are great, and many from great distances, who visit it daily\nas an object of curiosity. They become strengthened if friends, converted\nif enemies, and all loud and zealous advocates, and will shortly give\nfull tone to the public voice. Our motto should be \"be not wearied with\nwell-doing.\" Accept the assurance of my affectionate friendship and\nrespect.\n\n\nTO MESSRS. RITCHIE AND GOOCH.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 13, 1822.\n\nMESSRS. RITCHIE AND GOOCH,--I am thankful to you for the paper you\nhave been so kind as to send me, containing the arraignment of the\nPresidents of the United States generally, as peculators or accessories\nto peculation, by an informer who masks himself under the signature\nof \"a Native Virginian.\" What relates to myself in this paper, (being\nhis No. VI., and the only No. I have seen) I had before read in the\n\"Federal Republican\" of Baltimore, of August 28th, which was sent to me\nby a friend, with the real name of the author. It was published there\nduring the ferment of a warmly-contested election. I considered it,\ntherefore, as an electioneering man\u0153uvre merely, and did not even think\nit required the trouble of recollecting, after a lapse of thirty-three\nyears, the circumstances of the case in which he charges me with having\npurloined from the treasury of the United States the sum of $1,148. But\nas he has thought it worth repeating in his Roll of informations against\nyour Presidents nominally, I shall give the truths of the case, which\nhe has omitted, perhaps because he did not know them, and ventured too\ninconsiderately to supply them from his own conjectures.\n\nOn the return from my mission to France, and joining the government here,\nin the spring of 1790, I had a long and heavy account to settle with the\nUnited States, of the administration of their pecuniary affairs in Europe,\nof which the superintendence had been confided to me while there. I gave\nin my account early, but the pressure of other business did not permit\nthe accounting officers to attend to it till October 10th, 1792, when\nwe settled, and a balance of $888 67 appearing to be due from me, (but\nerroneously as will be shown,) I paid the money the same day, delivered\nup my vouchers, and received a certificate of it. But still the articles\nof my draughts on the bankers could be only _provisionally_ past; until\ntheir accounts also should be received to be confronted with mine. And\nit was not till the 24th of June, 1804, that I received a letter from\nMr. Richard Harrison the auditor, informing me \"that my accounts, as\nMinister to France, had been adjusted and closed,\" adding, \"the bill\ndrawn and credited by you under date of the 21st of October, 1789, for\nbanco florins 2,800, having never yet appeared in any account of the Dutch\nbankers, stand at your debit only as a _provisional_ charge. If it should\nhereafter turn out, as I incline to think it will, that this bill has\nnever been negotiated or used by Mr. Grand, you will have a just claim on\nthe public for its value.\" This was the first intimation to me that I had\ntoo hastily charged myself with that draught. I determined, however, as\nI had allowed it in my account, and paid up the balance it had produced\nagainst me, to let it remain awhile, as there was a possibility that the\ndraught might still be presented by the holder to the bankers; and so\nit remained till I was near leaving Washington, on my final retirement\nfrom the administration in 1809. I then received from the auditor, Mr.\nHarrison, the following note: \"Mr. Jefferson, in his accounts as late\nMinister to France, credited among other sums, a bill drawn by him on\nthe 21st October, 1789, to the order of Grand & Co., on the bankers of\nthe United States at Amsterdam, f. Banco f. 2,800, equal with _agio_ to\ncurrent florins 2,870, and which was charged to him _provisionally_ in\nthe official statement made at the Treasury, in the month of October,\n1804. But as this bill has not yet been noticed in any account rendered\nby the bankers, the presumption is strong that it was never negotiated\nor presented for payment, and Mr. Jefferson, therefore, appears justly\nentitled to receive the value of it, which, at forty cents the gilder,\n(the rate at which it was estimated in the above-mentioned statement,)\namounts to $1,148. Auditor's office, January 24th, 1809.\"\n\nDesirous of leaving nothing unsettled behind me, I drew the money from\nthe treasury, but without any interest, although I had let it lie there\ntwenty years, and had actually on that error paid $888 67, an apparent\nbalance against me, when the true balance was in my favor $259 33. The\nquestion then is, how has this happened? I have examined minutely and\ncan state it clearly.\n\nTurning to my pocket diary I find that on the 21st day of October, 1789,\nthe date of this bill, I was at Cowes in England, on my return to the\nUnited States. The entry in my diary is in these words: \"1789, October\n21st. Sent to Grand & Co., letter of credit on Willinks, Van Staphorsts\nand Hubbard, for 2,800 florins Banco.\" And I immediately credited it\nin my account with the United States in the following words: \"1789,\nOctober 21. By my bill on Willinks, Van Staphorsts and Hubbard, in\nfavor of Grand & Co., for 2,800 florins, equal to 6,250 livres 18 sous.\"\nMy account having been kept in livres and sous of France, the auditor\nsettled this sum at the current exchange, making it $1,148. This bill,\ndrawn at Cowes in England, had to pass through London to Paris by the\nEnglish and French mails, in which passage it was lost, by some unknown\naccident, to which it was the more exposed in the French mail, by the\nconfusion then prevailing; for it was exactly at the time that martial\nlaw was proclaimed at Paris, the country all up in arms, and executions\nby the mobs were daily perpetrating through town and country. However\nthis may have been, the bill never got to the hands of Grand & Co., was\nnever, of course, forwarded by them to the bankers of Amsterdam, nor\nanything more ever heard of it. The auditor's first conjecture then was\nthe true one, that it never was negotiated, nor therefore charged to the\nUnited States in any of the bankers' accounts. I have now under my eye\na duplicate furnished me by Grand of his account of that date against\nthe United States, and his private account against myself, and I affirm\nthat he has not noticed this bill in either of these accounts, and the\nauditor assures us the Dutch bankers had never charged it. The sum of the\nwhole then is, that I drew a bill on the United States bankers, charged\nmyself with it on the presumption it would be paid, that it never was\npaid however, either by the bankers of the United States, or anybody\nelse. It was surely just then to return me the money I had paid for it.\nYet \"the Native Virginian\" thinks that this act of receiving back the\nmoney I had thus through error overpaid, \"_was a palpable and manifest\nart of moral turpitude, about which no two honest, impartial men can\npossibly differ_.\" I ascribe these hard expressions to the ardor of\nhis zeal for the public good, and as they contain neither argument nor\nproof, I pass them over without observation. Indeed, I have not been in\nthe habit of noticing these morbid ejections of spleen either with or\nwithout the names of those venting them. But I have thought it a duty\non the present occasion to relieve my fellow citizens and my country\nfrom the degradation in the eyes of the world to which this informer\nis endeavoring to reduce it by representing it as governed hitherto\nby a succession of swindlers and peculators. Nor shall I notice any\nfurther endeavors to prove or to palliate this palpable misinformation.\nI am too old and inert to undertake minute investigations of intricate\ntransactions of the last century; and I am not afraid to trust to the\njustice and good sense of my fellow-citizens on future, as on former\nattempts to lessen me in their esteem.\n\nI ask of you, gentlemen, the insertion of this letter in your paper;\nand I trust that the printers who have hazarded the publication of the\nlibel, on anonymous authority, will think that of the answer a moderate\nretribution of the wrong to which they have been accessory.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 1, 1822.\n\nIt is very long, my dear Sir, since I have written to you. My dislocated\nwrist is now become so stiff that I write slow and with pain, and\ntherefore write as little as I can. Yet it is due to mutual friendship\nto ask once in awhile how we do? The papers tell us that General Starke\nis off at the age of 93. Charles Thomson still lives at about the same\nage, cheerful, slender as a grasshopper, and so much without memory\nthat he scarcely recognizes the members of his household. An intimate\nfriend of his called on him not long since; it was difficult to make\nhim recollect who he was, and, sitting one hour, he told him the same\nstory four times over. Is this life?\n\n \"With lab'ring step\n To tread our former footsteps? pace the round\n Eternal?--to beat and beat\n The beaten track? to see what we have seen,\n To taste the tasted? o'er our palates to decant\n Another vintage?\"\n\nIt is at most but the life of a cabbage; surely not worth a wish. When\nall our faculties have left, or are leaving us, one by one, sight,\nhearing, memory, every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and\nathumy, debility and malaise left in their places, when friends of our\nyouth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know\nnot, is death an evil?\n\n When one by one our ties are torn,\n And friend from friend is snatched forlorn,\n When man is left alone to mourn,\n Oh! then how sweet it is to die!\n When trembling limbs refuse their weight,\n And films slow gathering dim the sight,\n When clouds obscure the mental light\n 'Tis nature's kindest boon to die!\n\nI really think so. I have ever dreaded a doting old age; and my health\nhas been generally so good, and is now so good, that I dread it still.\nThe rapid decline of my strength during the last winter has made me\nhope sometimes that I see land. During summer I enjoy its temperature,\nbut I shudder at the approach of winter, and wish I could sleep through\nit with the Dormouse, and only wake with him in spring, if ever. They\nsay that Starke could walk about his room. I am told you walk well and\nfirmly. I can only reach my garden, and that with sensible fatigue. I\nride, however, daily. But reading is my delight. I should wish never to\nput pen to paper; and the more because of the treacherous practice some\npeople have of publishing one's letters without leave. Lord Mansfield\ndeclared it a breach of trust, and punishable at law. I think it should\nbe a penitentiary felony; yet you will have seen that they have drawn\nme out into the arena of the newspapers; although I know it is too late\nfor me to buckle on the armor of youth, yet my indignation would not\npermit me passively to receive the kick of an ass.\n\nTo turn to the news of the day, it seems that the Cannibals of Europe\nare going to eating one another again. A war between Russia and Turkey\nis like the battle of the kite and snake. Whichever destroys the other,\nleaves a destroyer the less for the world. This pugnacious humor of\nmankind seems to be the law of his nature, one of the obstacles to too\ngreat multiplication provided in the mechanism of the Universe. The cocks\nof the henyard kill one another up. Bears, bulls, rams, do the same. And\nthe horse, in his wild state, kills all the young males, until worn down\nwith age and war, some vigorous youth kills him, and takes to himself\nthe Harem of females. I hope we shall prove how much happier for man the\nQuaker policy is, and that the life of the feeder, is better than that\nof the fighter; and it is some consolation that the desolation by these\nmaniacs of one part of the earth is the means of improving it in other\nparts. Let the latter be our office, and let us milk the cow, while the\nRussian holds her by the horns, and the Turk by the tail. God bless you,\nand give you health, strength, and good spirits, and as much of life as\nyou think worth having.\n\n\nTO REV. MR. WHITTEMORE.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 5, 1822.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for the pamphlets you have been so kind as to send\nme, and am happy to learn that the doctrine of Jesus that there is but\none God, is advancing prosperously among our fellow citizens. Had his\ndoctrines, pure as they came from himself, been never sophisticated\nfor unworthy purposes, the whole civilized world would at this day have\nformed but a single sect. You ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in\nyour catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate a specified\ncreed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian\nchurch, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of\nChristendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of\ninextinguishable hatred to one another. Witness the present internecine\nrage of all other sects against the Unitarian. The religions of antiquity\nhad no particular formulas of creed. Those of the modern world none,\nexcept those of the religionists calling themselves Christians, and\neven among these the Quakers have none. And hence, alone, the harmony,\nthe quiet, the brotherly affections, the exemplary and unschismatising\nsociety of the Friends, and I hope the Unitarians, will follow their\nhappy example. With these sentiments of the mischiefs of creeds and\nconfessions of faith, I am sure you will excuse my not giving opinions\non the items of any particular one; and that you will accept, at the\nsame time, the assurance of the high respect and consideration which I\nbear to its author.\n\n\nTO MESSRS. RITCHIE AND GOOCH.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 10, 1822.\n\nMESSRS. RITCHIE AND GOOCH,--In my letter to you of May 13th, in answer\nto a charge by a person signing himself \"A Native Virginian,\" that on\na bill drawn by me for a sum equivalent to $1,148, the treasury of the\nUnited States had made _double payment_, I supposed I had done as much as\nwould be required when I showed they had only returned to me money which\nI had previously paid into the treasury on the presumption that such a\nbill had been paid for me, but that this bill being lost or destroyed on\nthe way, had never been presented, consequently never paid by the United\nStates, and that the money was therefore returned to me. This being too\nplain for controversy, the pseudo Native of Virginia, in his reply, No.\n32, in the Federal Republican of May 24th, reduces himself ultimately\nto the ground of a _double receipt_ of the money by me, first on sale or\nnegotiation of the bill in Europe, and a second time from the treasury.\nBut the bill was never sold or negotiated anywhere. It was not drawn\nto raise money in the market. I sold it to nobody, received no money\non it, but enclosed it to Grand & Co. for some purpose of account, for\nwhat particular purpose neither my memory, after a lapse of thirty-three\nyears, nor my papers enable me to say. Had I preserved a copy of my\nletter to Grand enclosing the bill, that would doubtless have explained\nthe purpose. But it was drawn on the eve of my embarkation with my family\nfrom Cowes for America, and probably the hurry of preparation for that\ndid not allow me time to take a copy. I presume this because I find no\nsuch letter among my papers. Nor does any subsequent correspondence\nwith Grand explain it, because I had no private account with him; my\naccount as minister being kept with the treasury directly, so that he,\nreceiving no intimation of this bill, could never give me notice of its\nmiscarriage. But, however satisfactory might have been an explanation\nof the purpose of the bill, it is unnecessary at least; the material\nfact being established that it never got to hand, nor was ever paid by\nthe United States.\n\nAnd how does the Native Virginian maintain his charge that I received the\ncash when I drew the bill? by unceremoniously inserting into the entry\nof that article in my account, words of his own, making me say in direct\nterms that I did receive the cash for the bill. In my account rendered\nto the treasury, it is entered in these words: \"1789, Oct. 1. By my bill\non Willincks, Van Staphorsts & Hubbard in favor of Grand & Co. for 2,800\nflorins, equal to 6,230 livres 18 sous,\" but he quotes it as stated in\nmy account rendered to and settled at the treasury, and yet remaining,\nas it is to be presumed, among the archives of that department, \"_By\ncash received of Grand_ for bill on Willincks, &c.\" Now the words \"_cash\nreceived of Grand_\" constitute \"the very point, the pivot, on which\nthe matter turns,\" as himself says, and not finding, he has furnished\nthem. Although the interpolation of them is sufficiently refuted by\nthe fact that Grand was, at the time, in France, and myself in England,\nyet wishing that conviction of the interpolation should be founded on\nofficial document, I wrote to the auditor, Mr. Harrison, requesting an\nofficial certificate of the _very words_ in which that article stood in\nmy autograph account deposited in the office. I received yesterday his\nanswer of the 3d, in which he says, \"I am unable to furnish the extract\nyou require, as the original account rendered by you of your pecuniary\ntransactions of a public nature in Europe, together with the vouchers\nand documents connected with it, were all destroyed in the Register's\noffice in the memorable conflagration of 1814. With respect, therefore,\nto the sum of $1,148 in question, I can only say that, after full and\nrepeated examinations, I considered you as most righteously and justly\nentitled to receive it. Otherwise, it will, I trust, be believed that I\ncould not have consented to the re-payment.\" Considering the intimacy\nwhich the Native Virginian shows with the treasury affairs, we might\nbe justified in suspecting that he knew this fact of the destruction\nof the original by fire when he ventured to misquote. But certainly we\nmay call on him to say, and to show, from what original he copied these\nwords: \"cash received from Grand\"? I say, most assuredly, from none,\nfor none such ever existed. Although the original be lost, which would\nhave convicted him officially, it happens that when I made from my rough\ndraft a fair copy of my account for the treasury, I took also, with a\ncopying-machine, a press-copy of every page, which I kept for my own\nuse. It is known that copies by this well-known machine are taken by\nimpression on damp paper laid on the face of the written page while fresh,\nand passed between rollers as copper plates are. They must therefore be\ntrue _fac similies_. This press-copy now lies before me, has been shown\nto several persons, and will be shown to as many as wish or are willing\nto examine it; and this article of my account is entered in it in these\nwords: \"1789, Oct. 1. By my bill on Willincks, Van Staphorsts & Hubbard\nfor 2,800 florins, equal to 6,230 livres 18 sous.\" An inspection of the\naccount, too, shows that whenever I received _cash_ for a bill, it is\nuniformly entered \"by cash received of such an one, &c;\" but where a\nbill was drawn to constitute an item of account only, the entry is \"by\nmy bill on, &c.\" Now to these very words \"cash received of Grand,\" not\nin my original but interpolated by himself, he constantly appeals as\nproofs of an acknowledgment _under my own hand_ that _I received the\ncash_. In proof of this, I must request patience to read the following\nquotations from his denunciations as standing in the Federal Republican\nof May 24:\n\nPage 2, column 2, 1. 48 to 29 from the bottom, \"he [Mr. J.] admits in\nhis account rendered in 1790 and settled in 1792, that he had _received\nthe_ '_cash_,' [placing the word _cash_ between inverted commas to\nhave it marked particularly as a quotation] that he had _received the_\n'_cash_' for the bill in question, and he does not directly deny it now.\nWill he, can he, in the _face of his own declaration in writing_ to the\ncontrary, publicly say that he did not receive the money for this bill in\nEurope? This is _the point_ on which the whole matter rests, the _pivot_\non which the arguments turn. If he did receive the money in Europe,\n(no matter whether at Cowes or at Paris,) he certainly had no right to\nreceive it a second time from the public treasury of the United States.\nThis is admitted I believe on all sides. Now, _that he did receive the\nmoney in Europe_ on this bill, is proved by the _acknowledgment of the\nreceiver himself_, who credits the amount in his account as settled at\nthe treasury thus: \"_cash received of Grand_ for bill on Willincks, Van\nStaphorsts, 2,876 gilders, 1,148 dollars.\"\n\nCol. 3, 1. 28 to 21 from bottom. There is a plain difference in the\nphraseology of the account, from which an extract is given by Mr. J. as\nabove, and that _which he rendered to the Treasury_. In the former he\ngives the credit thus, \"By my bills on Willincks,\" &c. In the latter he\nstates, \"By _cash received of Grand_ for bill on Willincks, &c.\" There\nis a difference, indeed, as he states it, but it is made solely by his\nown interpolation.\n\nCol. 3, 1. 8, from bottom. \"That Mr. Jefferson should, in the very teeth\nof the facts of the evidence before us, and in his own breast, gravely\nsay that he had paid the money for this bill, and that therefore it\nwas but just to return him the amount of it, when he had, _by his own\nacknowledgment_, sent it to Grand & Co., and _received the money for\nit_, is, I confess, not only matter of utter astonishment but regret.\"\nI spare myself the qualifications which these paragraphs may merit,\nleaving them to be applied by every reader according to the feelings\nthey may excite in his own breast.\n\nHe proceeds: \"And now to place this case beyond the reach of cavil or\ndoubt, and to show _most conclusively_ that he had negotiated this bill\nin Europe, and _received the cash_ for it there, and that such was the\nunderstanding of the matter at the treasury in 1809, when he received\nthe money.\" These are his own words. Col. 4, he brings forward the\noverwhelming fact \"not hitherto made public but stated from the most\ncreditable and authentic source, that one of the accounting officers\nof the treasury suggested in writing the propriety of taking bond and\nsecurity from Mr. J., for indemnification of the United States against\nany future claim on this bill. But it seems the bond was not taken, and\nthe government is now liable in law, and in good faith for the payment of\nthis bill to the rightful owner.\" How this suggestion of taking bond at\nthe treasury, so solemnly paraded, is _more conclusive_ proof than his\nown interpolation, that the _cash was received_, I am so dull as not to\nperceive; but I say, that had the suggestion been made to me, it would\nhave been instantly complied with. But I deny his law. Were the bill now\nto be presented to the treasury, the answer would and should be the same\nas a merchant would give: \"You have held up this bill three and thirty\nyears without notice; we have settled in the meantime with the drawer,\nand have no effects of his left in our hands. Apply to him for payment.\"\nOn his application to me, I should first inquire into the history of the\nbill; where it had been lurking for three and thirty years? how came he\nby it? by interception? by trover? by assignment from Grand? by purchase?\nfrom whom, when and where? And according to his answers I should either\ninstitute criminal process against him, or if he showed that all was\nfair and honest, I should pay him the money, and look for reimbursement\nto the quarter appearing liable. The law deems seven years' absence of\na man, without being heard of, such presumptive evidence of his death,\nas to distribute his estate, and to allow his wife to marry again. The\nAuditor thought that twenty years non-appearance of a bill which had\nbeen risked through the post-offices of two nations, was sufficient\npresumption of its loss. But this self-styled native of Virginia thinks\nthat the thirty-three years now elapsed are not sufficient. Be it so.\nIf the accounting officers of the treasury have any uneasiness on that\nsubject, I am ready to give a bond of indemnification to the United\nStates in any sum the officers will name, and with the security which\nthemselves shall approve. Will this satisfy the native Virginian? or will\nhe now try to pick some other hole in this transaction, to shield himself\nfrom a candid acknowledgment, that in making up his case, he supplied by\ngratuitous conjectures, the facts which were not within his knowledge,\nand that thus he has sinned against truth in his declarations before the\npublic? Be this as it may, I have so much confidence in the discernment\nand candor of my fellow-citizens, as to leave to their judgment, and\ndismiss from my own notice any future torture of words or circumstances\nwhich this writer may devise for their deception. Indeed, could such\na denunciation, and on such proof, bereave me of that confidence and\nconsolation, I should, through the remainder of life, brood over the\nafflicting belief that I had lived and labored in vain.\n\n\nTO MR. GOODENOW.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 13, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I thank you for the volume of American Jurisprudence, which you\nhave been so kind as to send me. I am now too old to read books solidly,\nunless they promise present amusement or future benefit. To me books\nof law offer neither. But I read your 6th chapter with interest and\nsatisfaction, on the question whether the common law (of England) makes\na part of the laws of our general government? That it makes more or less\na part of the laws of the States is, I suppose, an unquestionable fact.\nNot by _birthright_, a conceit as inexplicable as the trinity, but by\nadoption. But, as to the general government, the Virginia Report on the\nalien and sedition laws, has so completely pulverized this pretension\nthat nothing new can be said on it. Still, seeing that judges of the\nSupreme Court, (I recollect, for example, Elsworth and Story) had been\nfound capable of such paralogism, I was glad to see that the Supreme\nCourt had given it up. In the case of Libel in the United States district\nCourt of Connecticut, the rejection of it was certainly sound; because\nno law of the general government had made it an offence. But such a case\nmight, I suppose, be sustained in the State Courts which have state\nlaws against libels. Because as to the portions of power within each\nState assigned to the general government, the President is as much the\nExecutive of the State, as their particular governor is in relation to\nState powers. These, however, are speculations with which I no longer\ntrouble myself; and therefore, to my thanks, I will only add assurances\nof my great respect.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR BENJAMIN WATERHOUSE.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 26, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your\ndenunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in\nits principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will\nfind it is as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the\nsensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there\nis but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn\nfrom you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more\nrapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and\nnoise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the\nhappiness of man.\n\n1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.\n\n2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.\n\n3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is\nthe sum of religion. These are the great points on which he endeavored to\nreform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing\ndogmas of Calvin.\n\n1. That there are three Gods.\n\n2. That good works, or the love of our neighbour, are nothing.\n\n3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the\nproposition, the more merit in its faith.\n\n4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.\n\n5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved,\nand certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can\ndamn them; no virtues of the latter save.\n\nNow, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes\nand acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists,\nas Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds\nforetold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up\nsome other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching\na counter-religion made up of the _deliria_ of crazy imaginations, as\nforeign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have\ndriven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the\nsupposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had\nthe doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from\nhis lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I\nrejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which\nhas surrendered its creed and conscience to neither Kings nor priests,\nthe genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there\nis not a _young man_ now living in the United States who will not die\nan Unitarian.\n\nBut much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established,\nits votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of\ncreed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the\nreligion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will\ngive up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are\nthe Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel,\nschismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common\nsense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of\nfeature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of\nUnitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable\ncircumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor!\nI conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and\nrespect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 27, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your kind letter of the 11th has given me great satisfaction.\nFor although I could not doubt but that the hand of age was pressing\nheavily on you, as on myself, yet we like to know the particulars and\nthe degree of that pressure. Much reflection too, has been produced by\nyour suggestion of lending my letter of the 1st, to a printer. I have\ngenerally great aversion to the insertion of my letters in the public\npapers; because of my passion for quiet retirement, and never to be\nexhibited in scenes on the public stage. Nor am I unmindful of the\nprecept of Horace, \"_solvere senescentem, mature sanus equum, ne peccet\nad extremum ridendus_.\" In the present case, however, I see a possibility\nthat this might aid in producing the very quiet after which I pant. I\ndo not know how far you may suffer, as I do, under the persecution of\nletters, of which every mail brings a fresh load. They are letters of\ninquiry, for the most part, always of good will, sometimes from friends\nwhom I esteem, but much oftener from persons whose names are unknown to\nme, but written kindly and civilly, and to which, therefore, civility\nrequires answers. Perhaps, the better known failure of your hand in its\nfunction of writing, may shield you in greater degree from this distress,\nand so far qualify the misfortune of its disability. I happened to turn\nto my letter-list some time ago, and a curiosity was excited to count\nthose received in a single year. It was the year before the last. I\nfound the number to be one thousand two hundred and sixty-seven, many\nof them requiring answers of elaborate research, and all to be answered\nwith due attention and consideration. Take an average of this number\nfor a week or a day, and I will repeat the question suggested by other\nconsiderations in mine of the 1st. Is this life? At best it is but the\nlife of a mill-horse, who sees no end to his circle but in death. To such\na life, that of a cabbage is paradise. It occurs then, that my condition\nof existence, truly stated in that letter, if better known, might check\nthe kind indiscretions which are so heavily oppressing the departing\nhours of life. Such a relief would, to me, be an ineffable blessing. But\nyours of the 11th, equally interesting and affecting, should accompany\nthat to which it is an answer. The two, taken together, would excite a\njoint interest, and place before our fellow-citizens the present condition\nof two ancient servants, who having faithfully performed their forty\nor fifty campaigns, _stipendiis omnibus expletis_, have a reasonable\nclaim to repose from all disturbance in the sanctuary of invalids and\nsuperannuates. But some device should be thought of for their getting\nbefore the public otherwise than by our own publication. Your printer,\nperhaps, could frame something plausible. * * * * *'s name should be left\nblank, as his picture, should it meet his eye, might give him pain. I\nconsign, however, the whole subject to your consideration, to do in it\nwhatever your own judgment shall approve, and repeat always, with truth,\nthe assurance of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM T. BARRY.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 2, 1822.\n\nSIR,--Your favor of the 15th of June is received, and I am very thankful\nfor the kindness of its expressions respecting myself. But it ascribes\nto me merits which I do not claim. I was only of a band devoted to the\ncause of independence, all of whom exerted equally their best endeavors\nfor its success, and have a common right to the merits of its acquisition.\nSo also is the civil revolution of 1801. Very many and very meritorious\nwere the worthy patriots who assisted in bringing back our government\nto its republican tack. To preserve it in that, will require unremitting\nvigilance. Whether the surrender of our opponents, their reception into\nour camp, their assumption of our name, and apparent accession to our\nobjects, may strengthen or weaken the genuine principles of republicanism,\nmay be a good or an evil, is yet to be seen. I consider the party division\nof whig and tory the most wholesome which can exist in any government,\nand well worthy of being nourished, to keep out those of a more dangerous\ncharacter. We already see the power, installed for life, responsible\nto no authority, (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow,) advancing\nwith a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation.\nThe foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions, for the\nannihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every\ncheck, every counterpoise to the ingulphing power of which themselves\nare to make a sovereign part. If ever this vast country is brought under\na single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption,\nindifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of\nsurface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between\nreformation and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the\none or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become inveterate,\nbefore its venom has reached so much of the body politic as to get\nbeyond control, remedy should be applied. Let the future appointments\nof judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and\nSenate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision\nand probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and\nspecial governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England,\nwhere certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of\nthe King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes\na judge removable on the address of both legislative Houses. That there\nshould be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may\nbe their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of\nabsurdity and inconsistency.\n\nTo the printed inquiries respecting our schools, it is not in my power to\ngive an answer. Age, debility, an ancient dislocated, and now stiffened\nwrist, render writing so slow and painful, that I am obliged to decline\neverything possible requiring writing. An act of our legislature will\ninform you of our plan of primary schools, and the annual reports show\nthat it is becoming completely abortive, and must be abandoned very\nshortly, after costing us to this day one hundred and eighty thousand\ndollars, and yet to cost us forty-five thousand dollars a year more until\nit shall be discontinued; and if a single boy has received the elements\nof common education, it must be in some part of the country not known to\nme. Experience has but too fully confirmed the early predictions of its\nfate. But on this subject I must refer you to others more able than I\nam to go into the necessary details; and I conclude with the assurances\nof my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR WATERHOUSE.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 19, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--An anciently dislocated, and now stiffening wrist, makes\nwriting an operation so slow and painful to me, that I should not so soon\nhave troubled you with an acknowledgment of your favor of the 8th, but for\nthe request it contained of my consent to the publication of my letter\nof June the 26th. No, my dear Sir, not for the world. Into what a nest\nof hornets would it thrust my head! the _genus irritable vatum_, on whom\nargument is lost, and reason is, by themselves, disclaimed in matters of\nreligion. Don Quixote undertook to redress the bodily wrongs of the world,\nbut the redressment of mental vagaries would be an enterprise more than\nQuixotic. I should as soon undertake to bring the crazy skulls of Bedlam\nto sound understanding, as inculcate reason into that of an Athanasian.\nI am old, and tranquility is now my _summum bonum_. Keep me, therefore,\nfrom the fire and faggots of Calvin and his victim Servetus. Happy in\nthe prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave\nto younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which\nhave been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern\nages. I am not aware of the peculiar resistance to Unitarianism, which\nyou ascribe to Pennsylvania. When I lived in Philadelphia, there was a\nrespectable congregation of that sect, with a meeting-house and regular\nservice which I attended, and in which Doctor Priestley officiated to\nnumerous audiences. Baltimore has one or two churches, and their pastor,\nauthor of an inestimable book on this subject, was elected chaplain to\nthe late Congress. That doctrine has not yet been preached to us: but\nthe breeze begins to be felt which precedes the storm; and fanaticism\nis all in a bustle, shutting its doors and windows to keep it out. But\nit will come, and drive before it the foggy mists of Platonism which\nhave so long obscured our atmosphere. I am in hopes that some of the\ndisciples of your institution will become missionaries to us, of these\ndoctrines truly evangelical, and open our eyes to what has been so long\nhidden from them. A bold and eloquent preacher would be nowhere listened\nto with more freedom than in this State, nor with more firmness of mind.\nThey might need a preparatory discourse on the text of \"prove all things,\nhold fast that which is good,\" in order to unlearn the lesson that reason\nis an unlawful guide in religion. They might startle on being first\nawaked from the dreams of the night, but they would rub their eyes at\nonce, and look the spectres boldly in the face. The preacher might be\nexcluded by our hierophants from their churches and meeting-houses, but\nwould be attended in the fields by whole acres of hearers and thinkers.\nMissionaries from Cambridge would soon be greeted with more welcome,\nthan from the tritheistical school of Andover. Such are my wishes, such\nwould be my welcomes, warm and cordial as the assurances of my esteem\nand respect for you.\n\n\nTO MR. THOMAS SKIDMAN.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 29, 1822.\n\nYou must be so good, Sir, as to excuse me from entering into the optical\ninvestigation which your letter of the 18th proposes. The hand of age\npresses heavily on me. I have long withdrawn my mind from speculations of\nthat kind; my memory is on the wane. I am averse even to close thinking,\nand writing is become slow, laborious and painful. I will make then\nbut a single suggestion on the subject of your proposition, to show my\nrespect to your request.\n\nTo distinct vision it is necessary not only that the visual angle should\nbe sufficient for the powers of the human eye, but that there should\nbe sufficient light also on the object of observation. In microscopic\nobservations, the enlargement of the angle of vision may be more\nindulged, because auxiliary light may be concentrated on the object by\nconcave mirrors. But in the case of the heavenly bodies, we can have\nno such aid. The moon, for example, receives from the sun but a fixed\nquantity of light. In proportion as you magnify her surface, you spread\nthat fixed quantity over a greater space, dilute it more, and render\nthe object more dim. If you increase her magnitude infinitely, you dim\nher face infinitely also, and she becomes invisible. When under total\neclipse, all the direct rays of the sun being intercepted, she is seen\nbut faintly, and would not be seen at all but for the refraction of the\nsolar rays in their passage through our atmosphere. In a night of extreme\ndarkness, a house or a mountain is not seen, as not having light enough\nto impress the limited sensibility of our eye. I do suppose in fact\nthat Herschel has availed himself of the properties of the parabolic\nmirror to the point beyond which its effect would be countervailed by\nthe diminution of light on the object. I barely suggest this element,\nnot presented to view in your letter, as one which must enter into the\nestimate of the improved telescope you propose. You will receive from\nthe professional mathematicians whom you have consulted, remarks more\nelaborate and profound, and must be so good as to accept mine merely as\ntestimonies of my respect.\n\n\nTO MR. GEORGE F. HOPKINS.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 5, 1822.\n\nSIR,--Your letter of August --, was received a few days ago. Of all the\ndepartments of science no one seems to have been less advanced for the\nlast hundred years than that of meteorology. The new chemistry indeed\nhas given us a new principle of the generation of rain, by proving\nwater to be a composition of different gases, and has aided our theory\nof meteoric lights. Electricity stands where Dr. Franklin's early\ndiscoveries placed it, except with its new modification of galvanism.\nBut the phenomena of snow, hail, halo, aurora borealis, haze, looming,\n&c., are as yet very imperfectly understood. I am myself an empiric in\nnatural philosophy, suffering my faith to go no further than my facts.\nI am pleased, however, to see the efforts of hypothetical speculation,\nbecause by the collisions of different hypotheses, truth may be elicited\nand science advanced in the end. This sceptical disposition does not\npermit me to say whether your hypothesis for looming and the floating\nvolumes of warm air occasionally perceived, may or may not be confirmed\nby future observations. More facts are yet wanting to furnish a solution\non which we may rest with confidence. I even doubt as yet whether the\nlooming at sea and at land are governed by the same laws. In this state\nof uncertainty, I cannot presume either to advise or discourage the\npublication of your essay. This must depend on circumstances of which\nyou must be abler to judge yourself, and therefore I return the paper\nas requested, with assurances of my great respect.\n\n\nTO MR. CHILES TERRIL.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 25, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I received on the 20th, your letter of the 13th, on the question\nwhat is an east and west line? which, you say, has been a subject of\ndiscussion in the newspapers. I presume, however, it must have been a\nmere question of definition, and that the parties have differed only\nin applying the same appellation to different things. The one defines\nan east and west line to be on a great circle of the earth, passing\nthrough the point of departure, its nadir point, and the centre of the\nearth, its plane rectangular, to that of the meridian of departure. The\nother considers an east and west line to be a line on the surface of\nthe earth, bounding a plane at right-angles with its axis, or a circle\nof latitude passing through the point of departure, or in other words,\na line which, from the point of departure, passes every meridian at a\nright-angle. Each party, therefore, defining the line he means, may be\npermitted to call it an east and west one, or at least it becomes no\nlonger a mathematical but a philological question of the meaning of the\nwords east and west. The last is what was meant probably by the east and\nwest line in the treaty of Ghent. The same has been the understanding\nin running the numerous east and west lines which divide our different\nStates. They have been run by observations of latitude at very short\nintervals, uniting the points of observation by short direct lines, and\nthus constituting in fact part of a polygon of very short sides.\n\nBut, Sir, I do not pretend to be an arbiter of these learned questions;\nage has weaned me from such speculations, and rendered me as incompetent\nas unwilling to puzzle myself with them. Your claim on me as a quondam\nneighbor has induced me to hazard thus much, not indeed for the\nnewspapers, a vehicle to which I am never willingly committed, but to\nprove my attention to your wishes, and to convey to you the assurances\nof my respect.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n MONTEZILLO, October 15, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have long entertained scruples about writing this letter,\nupon a subject of some delicacy. But old age has overcome them at last.\n\nYou remember the four ships ordered by Congress to be built, and the\nfour captains appointed by Washington, Talbot, and Truxton, and Barry,\n&c., to carry an ambassador to Algiers, and protect our commerce in the\nMediterranean. I have always imputed this measure to you, for several\nreasons. First, because you frequently proposed it to me while we were at\nParis, negotiating together for peace with the Barbary powers. Secondly,\nbecause I knew that Washington and Hamilton were not only indifferent\nabout a navy, but averse to it. There was no Secretary of the Navy;\nonly four Heads of department. You were Secretary of State; Hamilton,\nSecretary of the Treasury; Knox, Secretary of War; and I believe Bradford\nwas Attorney General. I have always suspected that you and Knox were\nin favor of a navy. If Bradford was so, the majority was clear. But\nWashington, I am confident, was against it in his judgment. But his\nattachment to Knox, and his deference to your opinion, for I know he\nhad a great regard for you, might induce him to decide in favor of you\nand Knox, even though Bradford united with Hamilton in opposition to\nyou. That Hamilton was averse to the measure, I have personal evidence;\nfor while it was pending, he came in a hurry and a fit of impatience,\nto make a visit to me. He said he was likely to be called upon for a\nlarge sum of money to build ships of war, to fight the Algerines, and\nhe asked my opinion of the measure. I answered him that I was clearly\nin favor of it. For I had always been of opinion, from the commencement\nof the revolution, that a navy was the most powerful, the safest and\nthe cheapest national defence for this country. My advice, therefore,\nwas, that as much of the revenue as could possibly be spared, should be\napplied to the building and equipping of ships. The conversation was\nof some length, but it was manifest in his looks and in his air, that\nhe was disgusted at the measure, as well as at the opinion that I had\nexpressed.\n\nMrs. Knox not long since wrote a letter to Doctor Waterhouse, requesting\nhim to procure a commission for her son, in the navy; that navy, says her\nladyship, of which his father was the parent. \"For,\" says she, \"I have\nfrequently heard General Washington say to my husband, the navy was your\nchild.\" I have always believed it to be Jefferson's child, though Knox\nmay have assisted in ushering it into the world. Hamilton's hobby was\nthe army. That Washington was averse to a navy, I had full proof from\nhis own lips, in many different conversations, some of them of length,\nin which he always insisted that it was only building and arming ships\nfor the English. \"_Si quid novisti rectius istis candidus imperti; si\nnon, his utere mecum._\"\n\nIf I am in error in any particular, pray correct your humble servant.\n\n\nTO MR. CORNELIUS CAMDEN BLATCHLY.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 21, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I return thanks for the pamphlet you have been so kind as to send\nme on the subject of commonwealths. Its moral principles merit entire\napprobation, its philanthropy especially, and its views of the equal\nrights of man. That, on the principle of a communion of property, small\nsocieties may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace,\nand consequently in a state of as much happiness as heaven has been\npleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and\nindeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been\nconstituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude\nfrom these that an extended society, like that of the United States, or\nof an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle.\nI look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to\nbe relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and\nadvancing the happiness of man. That every man shall be made virtuous,\nby any process whatever, is, indeed, no more to be expected, than that\nevery tree shall be made to bear fruit, and every plant nourishment.\nThe brier and bramble can never become the vine and olive; but their\nasperities may be softened by culture, and their properties improved to\nusefulness in the order and economy of the world. And I do hope that,\nin the present spirit of extending to the great mass of mankind the\nblessings of instruction, I see a prospect of great advancement in the\nhappiness of the human race; and that this may proceed to an indefinite,\nalthough not to an infinite degree. Wishing every success to the views\nof your society which their hopes can promise, and thanking you most\nparticularly for the kind expressions of your letter towards myself, I\nsalute you with assurances of great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 1, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have racked my memory and ransacked my papers, to enable\nmyself to answer the inquiries of your favor of October the 15th; but to\nlittle purpose. My papers furnish me nothing, my memory, generalities\nonly. I know that while I was in Europe, and anxious about the fate\nof our seafaring men, for some of whom, then in captivity in Algiers,\nwe were treating, and all were in like danger, I formed, undoubtingly,\nthe opinion that our government, as soon as practicable, should provide\na naval force sufficient to keep the Barbary States in order; and on\nthis subject we communicated together, as you observe. When I returned\nto the United States and took part in the administration under General\nWashington, I constantly maintained that opinion; and in December, 1790,\ntook advantage of a reference to me from the first Congress which met\nafter I was in office, to report in favor of a force sufficient for\nthe protection of our Mediterranean commerce; and I laid before them an\naccurate statement of the whole Barbary force, public and private. I think\nGeneral Washington approved of building vessels of war to that extent.\nGeneral Knox, I know, did. But what was Colonel Hamilton's opinion, I\ndo not in the least remember. Your recollections on that subject are\ncertainly corroborated by his known anxieties for a close connection\nwith Great Britain, to which he might apprehend danger from collisions\nbetween their vessels and ours. Randolph was then Attorney General; but\nhis opinion on the question I also entirely forget. Some vessels of war\nwere accordingly built and sent into the Mediterranean. The additions\nto these in your time, I need not note to you, who are well known to\nhave ever been an advocate for the wooden walls of Themistocles. Some of\nthose you added, were sold under an act of Congress passed while you were\nin office. I thought, afterwards, that the public safety might require\nsome additional vessels of strength, to be prepared and in readiness\nfor the first moment of a war, provided they could be preserved against\nthe decay which is unavoidable if kept in the water, and clear of the\nexpense of officers and men. With this view I proposed that they should\nbe built in dry docks, above the level of the tide waters, and covered\nwith roofs. I further advised, that places for these docks should be\nselected where there was a command of water on a high level, as that\nof the Tyber at Washington, by which the vessels might be floated out,\non the principle of a lock. But the majority of the legislature was\nagainst any addition to the navy, and the minority, although for it in\njudgment, voted against it on a principle of opposition. We are now,\nI understand, building vessels to remain on the stocks, under shelter,\nuntil wanted, when they will be launched and finished. On my plan they\ncould be in service at an hour's notice. On this, the finishing, after\nlaunching, will be a work of time.\n\nThis is all I recollect about the origin and progress of our navy. That\nof the late war, certainly raised our rank and character among nations.\nYet a navy is a very expensive engine. It is admitted, that in ten or\ntwelve years a vessel goes to entire decay; or, if kept in repair, costs\nas much as would build a new one; and that a nation who could count on\ntwelve or fifteen years of peace, would gain by burning its navy and\nbuilding a new one in time. Its extent, therefore, must be governed by\ncircumstances. Since my proposition for a force adequate to the piracies\nof the Mediterranean, a similar necessity has arisen in our own seas\nfor considerable addition to that force. Indeed, I wish we could have\na convention with the naval powers of Europe, for them to keep down\nthe pirates of the Mediterranean, and the slave ships on the coast of\nAfrica, and for us to perform the same duties for the society of nations\nin our seas. In this way, those collisions would be avoided between the\nvessels of war of different nations, which beget wars and constitute\nthe weightiest objection to navies. I salute you with constant affection\nand respect.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR COOPER.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 2, 1822.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of October the 18th came to hand yesterday. The\natmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening\ncloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too\nheavy in all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of\ntoleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height\nyou describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism.\nThe blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and the\nimpossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of\nreasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation. In Boston, however, and\nits neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now\nto humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch, that they\ncondescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities\nof preaching freely and frequently in each others' meeting houses. In\nRhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an\nUnitarian to pollute his desk. In our Richmond there is much fanaticism,\nbut chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and praying\nparties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked\nhusband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms\nas amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to a\nmere earthly lover. In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good\ndegree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four\nsects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the\ncommon temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and\nPresbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their\nMaker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and\nall mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in the districts\nwhere Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny\nwould tolerate no rival if they had power. Systematical in grasping\nat an ascendency over all other sects, they aim, like the Jesuits, at\nengrossing the education of the country, are hostile to every institution\nwhich they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend\nat all to that object. The diffusion of instruction, to which there is\nnow so growing an attention, will be the remote remedy to this fever\nof fanaticism; while the more proximate one will be the progress of\nUnitarianism. That this will, ere long, be the religion of the majority\nfrom north to south, I have no doubt.\n\nIn our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity.\nA handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is\nan institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion.\nOccasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward\nan idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed in the minds\nof some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the\nlegislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public\nestablishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of\nencouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself,\na professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university,\nso near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have\nthe free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give\nthem; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.\nThis fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution\nprofessing to give instruction in _all_ useful sciences. I think the\ninvitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by\nothers from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together,\nand mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their\nasperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the\ngeneral religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.\n\nThe time of opening our university is still as uncertain as ever. All\nthe pavilions, boarding houses, and dormitories are done. Nothing is now\nwanting but the central building for a library and other general purposes.\nFor this we have no funds, and the last legislature refused all aid. We\nhave better hopes of the next. But all is uncertain. I have heard with\nregret of disturbances on the part of the students in your seminary.\nThe article of discipline is the most difficult in American education.\nPremature ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents beget a\nspirit of insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science with\nus, and a principal cause of its decay since the revolution. I look to\nit with dismay in our institution, as a breaker ahead, which I am far\nfrom being confident we shall be able to weather. The advance of age,\nand tardy pace of the public patronage, may probably spare me the pain\nof witnessing consequences.\n\nI salute you with constant friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN CAMPBELL, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 10, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I have to acknowledge your favor of the 4th instant, which gives me\nthe first information I had ever received that the laurels which Colonel\nCampbell so honorably won in the battle of King's Mountain, had ever been\nbrought into question by any one. To him has been ever ascribed so much\nof the success of that brilliant action as the valor and conduct of an\nable commander might justly claim. This lessens nothing the merits of his\ncompanions in arms, officers and soldiers, who, all and every one, acted\nwell their parts in their respective stations. I have no papers on this\nsubject in my possession, all such received at that day having belonged\nto the records of the council, but I remember well the deep and grateful\nimpression made on the mind of every one by that memorable victory. It\nwas the joyful annunciation of that turn of the tide of success which\nterminated the revolutionary war with the seal of our independence.\nThe slighting expression complained of, as hazarded by the venerable\nShelby, might seem inexcusable in a younger man, but he was then old,\nand I can assure you, dear Sir, from mortifying experience, that the\nlapses of memory of an old man are innocent subjects of compassion more\nthan of blame. The descendants of Colonel Campbell may rest their heads\nquietly on the pillow of his renown. History has consecrated, and will\nforever preserve it in the faithful annals of a grateful country. With\nthe expressions of the high sense I entertain of his character, accept\nthe assurance to yourself of my great esteem and respect.\n\nP. S. I received at the same time with your letter, one from Mr. William\nC. Preston, on the same subject. Writing is so slow and painful to me,\nthat I must pray you to make for me my acknowledgments to him, and my\nrequest that he will consider this as an answer to his as well as your\nfavor.\n\n\nTO JAMES SMITH.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 8, 1822.\n\nSIR,--I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of\nUnitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for\nthe revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical\nfact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and\nuncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among\nthe efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of\nthe ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor\nwas the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by\nthe force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at\nthe will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God\nlike another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and\ngrowth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong\nproof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon\nas a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious\nopinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and\nsimple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant\nin the eastern States; it is dawning in the west, and advancing towards\nthe south; and I confidently expect that the present generation will\nsee Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States. The\neastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and\nPriestley's learned writings on it are, or should be, in every hand.\nIn fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one,\nis so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he\nhas any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who\nthinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once\nsurrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the\nmost monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every\nwind. With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the\nhelm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.\n\nI write with freedom, because, while I claim a right to believe in\none God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that\nof believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and\nthat is the only point society has any right to look to. Although this\nmutual freedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be\nbrought in question before the public on this or any other subject, and\nI pray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no part in\ncontroversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquillity\nis the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of\ndying in the good will of all mankind. And with the assurance of all\nmy good will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig and Tory, accept for\nyourself that of my entire respect.\n\n\nTO MR. EDWARD EVERETT.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 24, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have read with much satisfaction the reply of Mr. Everett,\nyour brother, to the criticisms on his work on the state of Europe,\nand concur with him generally in the doctrines of the reply. Certainly\n_provisions_ are not allowed, by the consent of nations, to be contraband\nbut where everything is so, as in the ease of a blockaded town, with\nwhich all intercourse is forbidden. On the question whether the principle\nof \"free bottoms making free goods, and enemy bottoms enemy goods,\" is\nnow to be considered as established in the law of nations, I will state\nto you a fact within my own knowledge, which may lessen the weight of\nour authority as having acted in the war of France and England on the\nancient principle \"that the goods of an enemy in the bottom of a friend\nare lawful prize; while those of a friend in an enemy bottom are not\nso.\" England became a party in the general war against France on the\n1st of February, 1793. We took immediately the stand of neutrality. We\nwere aware that our great intercourse with these two maritime nations\nwould subject us to harassment by multiplied questions on the duties\nof neutrality, and that an important and early one would be which of\nthe two principles above stated should be the law of action with us? We\nwished to act on the new one of \"free bottoms free goods;\" and we had\nestablished it in our treaties with other nations, but not with England.\nWe determined therefore to avoid, if possible, committing ourselves on\nthis question until we could negotiate with England her acquiescence in\nthe new principle. Although the cases occurring were numerous, and the\nministers, Genet and Hammond, eagerly on the watch, we were able to avoid\nany declaration until the massacre of St. Domingo. The whites, on that\noccasion, took refuge on board our ships, then in their harbor, with\nall the property they could find room for; and on their passage to the\nUnited States, many of them were taken by British cruisers, and their\ncargoes seized as lawful prize. The inflammable temper of Genet kindled\nat once, and he wrote, with his usual passion, a letter reclaiming an\nobservance of the principle of \"free bottoms free goods,\" as if already\nan acknowledged law of neutrality. I pressed him in conversation not\nto urge this point; that although it had been acted on by convention,\nby the armed neutrality, it was not yet become a principle of universal\nadmission; that we wished indeed to strengthen it by our adoption, and\nwere negotiating an acquiescence on the part of Great Britain: but if\nforced to decide prematurely, we must justify ourselves by a declaration\nof the ancient principle, and that no general consent of nations had\nas yet changed it. He was immoveable, and on the 25th of July wrote a\nletter, so insulting, that nothing but a determined system of justice\nand moderation would have prevented his being shipped home in the first\nvessel. I had the day before answered his of the 9th, in which I had\nbeen obliged in our own justification, to declare that the ancient was\nthe established principle, still existing and authoritative. Our denial,\ntherefore, of the new principle, and action on the old one, were forced\nupon us by the precipitation and intemperance of Genet, against our\nwishes, and against our aim; and our involuntary practice, therefore,\nis of less authority against the new rule.\n\nI owe you particular thanks for the copy of your translation of Buttman's\nGreek Grammar, which you have been so kind as to send me. A cursory view\nof it promises me a rich mine of valuable criticism. I observe he goes\nwith the herd of grammarians in denying an Ablative case to the Greek\nlanguage. I cannot concur with him in that, but think with the Messrs.\nof Port Royal who admit an Ablative. And why exclude it? Is it because\nthe Dative and Ablative in Greek are always of the same form? Then there\nis no Ablative to the Latin plurals, because in them as in Greek, these\ncases are always in the same form. The Greeks recognized the Ablative\nunder the appellation of the \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7, which I have met with and\nnoted from some of the scholiasts, without recollecting where. Stephens,\nScapula, Hederic acknowledge it as one of the significations of the\nword \u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. That the Greeks used it cannot be denied. For one\nof multiplied examples which maybe produced take the following from the\nHippolytus of Euripides: \"\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1ff3, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u0395\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\"\n\"dic quo modo justiti\u00e6 clava percussit eum,\" \"quo modo\" are Ablatives,\nthen why not \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1ff3? And translating it into English, should we use\nthe [16]Dative or Ablative preposition? It is not perhaps easy to define\nvery critically what constitutes a case in the declension of nouns. All\nagree as to the Nominative that it is simply the name of the thing. If we\nadmit that a distinct case is constituted by any accident or modification\nwhich changes the relation which that bears to the actors or action\nof the sentence, we must agree to the six cases at least; because, for\nexample, _to_ a thing, and _from_ a thing are very different accidents to\nthe thing. It may be said that if every distinct accident or change of\nrelation constitutes a different case, then there are in every language\nas many cases as there are prepositions; for this is the peculiar office\nof the preposition. But because we do not designate by special names\nall the cases to which a noun is liable, is that a reason why we should\nthrow away half of those we have, as is done by those grammarians who\nreject all cases, but the Nominative, Genitive, and Accusative, and in\na less degree by those also who reject the Ablative alone? as pushing\nthe discrimination of all the possible cases to extremities leads us to\nnothing useful or practicable, I am contented with the old six cases,\nfamiliar to every cultivated language, ancient and modern, and well\nunderstood by all. I acknowledge myself at the same time not an adept in\nthe metaphysical speculations of Grammar. By analyzing too minutely we\noften reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold. Nor\nam I a friend to a scrupulous purism of style. I readily sacrifice the\nniceties of syntax to euphony and strength. It is by boldly neglecting\nthe rigorisms of grammar, that Tacitus has made himself the strongest\nwriter in the world. The Hyperesitics call him barbarous; but I should\nbe sorry to exchange his barbarisms for their wise-drawn purisms. Some of\nhis sentences are as strong as language can make them. Had he scrupulously\nfilled up the whole of their syntax, they would have been merely common.\nTo explain my meaning by an English example, I will quote the motto of\none, I believe, of the regicides of Charles I., \"Rebellion _to_ tyrants\nis obedience to God.\" Correct its syntax, \"Rebellion _against_ tyrants\nis obedience to God,\" it has lost all the strength and beauty of the\nantithesis. However, dear Sir, I profess again my want of familiarity\nwith these speculations; I hazard them without confidence, and offer\nthem submissively to your consideration and more practised judgment.\n\nAlthough writing, with both hands crippled, is slow and painful, and\ntherefore nearly laid aside from necessity, I have been decoyed by my\nsubjects into a very long letter. What would therefore have been a good\nexcuse for ending with the first page, cannot be a bad one for concluding\nin the fourth, with the assurance of my great esteem and respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [16] See Buttman's Datives, p. 230, every one of which I\n should consider as under the accident or relation called\n Ablative, having no signification of _approach_ according\n to his definition of the Dative.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 25, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received, in due time, your two favors of December the\n2d and February the 10th, and have to acknowledge for the ladies of\nmy native State their obligations to you for the encomiums which you\nare so kind as to bestow on them. They certainly claim no advantages\nover those of their sister States, and are sensible of more favorable\ncircumstances existing with many of them, and happily availed, which our\nsituation does not offer. But the paper respecting Monticello, to which\nyou allude, was not written by a Virginian, but a visitant from another\nState; and written by memory at least a dozen years after the visit.\nThis has occasioned some lapses of recollection, and a confusion of some\nthings in the mind of our friend, and particularly as to the volume of\nslanders supposed to have been cut out of newspapers and preserved.\nIt would not, indeed, have been a single volume, but an encyclopedia\nin bulk. But I never had such a volume; indeed, I rarely thought those\nlibels worth reading, much less preserving and remembering. At the end\nof every year, I generally sorted all my pamphlets, and had them bound\naccording to their subjects. One of these volumes consisted of personal\naltercations between individuals, and calumnies on each other. This\nwas lettered on the back, \"Personalities,\" and is now in the library of\nCongress. I was in the habit, also, while living apart from my family,\nof cutting out of the newspapers such morsels of poetry, or tales, as\nI thought would please, and of sending them to my grandchildren, who\npasted them on leaves of blank paper and formed them into a book. These\ntwo volumes have been confounded into one in the recollection of our\nfriend. Her poetical imagination, too, has heightened the scenes she\nvisited, as well as the merits of the inhabitants, to whom her society\nwas a delightful gratification.\n\nI have just finished reading O'Meara's Bonaparte. It places him in a\nhigher scale of understanding than I had allotted him. I had thought him\nthe greatest of all military captains, but an indifferent statesman, and\nmisled by unworthy passions. The flashes, however, which escaped from him\nin these conversations with O'Meara, prove a mind of great expansion,\nalthough not of distinct development and reasoning. He seizes results\nwith rapidity and penetration, but never explains logically the process\nof reasoning by which he arrives at them. This book, too, makes us\nforget his atrocities for a moment, in commiseration of his sufferings.\nI will not say that the authorities of the world, charged with the care\nof their country and people, had not a right to confine him for life,\nas a lion or tiger, on the principle of self-preservation. There was\nno safety to nations while he was permitted to roam at large. But the\nputting him to death in cold blood, by lingering tortures of mind, by\nvexations, insults and deprivations, was a degree of inhumanity to which\nthe poisonings and assassinations of the school of Borgia and the den\nof Marat never attained. The book proves, also, that nature had denied\nhim the moral sense, the first excellence of well-organized man. If he\ncould seriously and repeatedly affirm that he had raised himself to power\nwithout ever having committed a crime, it proves that he wanted totally\nthe sense of right and wrong. If he could consider the millions of human\nlives which he had destroyed or caused to be destroyed, the desolations\nof countries by plunderings, burnings, and famine, the destitutions of\nlawful rulers of the world without the consent of their constituents,\nto place his brothers and sisters on their thrones, the cutting up of\nestablished societies of men and jumbling them discordantly together\nagain at his caprice, the demolition of the fairest hopes of mankind for\nthe recovery of their rights and amelioration of their condition, and\nall the numberless train of his other enormities; the man, I say, who\ncould consider all these as no crimes, must have been a moral monster,\nagainst whom every hand should have been lifted to slay him.\n\nYou are so kind as to inquire after my health. The bone of my arm is\nwell knitted, but my hand and fingers are in a discouraging condition,\nkept entirely useless by an \u0153dematous swelling of slow amendment.\n\nGod bless you and continue your good health of body and mind.\n\n\nTO JUDGE JOHNSON.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 4, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I delayed some time the acknowledgment of your welcome letter\nof December 10th, on the common lazy principle of never doing to-day what\nwe can put off to to-morrow, until it became doubtful whether a letter\nwould find you at Charleston. Learning now that you are at Washington,\nI will reply to some particulars which seem to require it.\n\nThe North American Review is a work I do not take, and which is little\nknown in this State, consequently I have never seen its observations\non your inestimable history, but a reviewer can never let a work pass\nuncensured. He must always make himself wiser than his author. He\nwould otherwise think it an abdication of his office of censor. On this\noccasion, he seems to have had more sensibility for Virginia than she\nhas for herself; for, on reading the work, I saw nothing to touch our\npride or jealousy, but every expression of respect and good will which\ntruth could justify. The family of enemies, whose buzz you apprehend,\nare now nothing. You may learn this at Washington; and their military\nrelation has long ago had the full-voiced condemnation of his own State.\nDo not fear, therefore, these insects. What you write will be far above\ntheir grovelling sphere. Let me, then, implore you, dear Sir, to finish\nyour history of parties, leaving the time of publication to the state\nof things you may deem proper, but taking especial care that we do not\nlose it altogether. We have been too careless of our future reputation,\nwhile our tories will omit nothing to place us in the wrong. Besides\nthe five-volumed libel which represents us as struggling for office,\nand not at all to prevent our government from being administered into\na monarchy, the life of Hamilton is in the hands of a man who, to the\nbitterness of the priest, adds the rancor of the fiercest federalism.\nMr. Adams' papers, too, and his biography, will descend of course to\nhis son, whose pen, you know, is pointed, and his prejudices not in\nour favor. And doubtless other things are in preparation, unknown to\nus. On our part we are depending on truth to make itself known, while\nhistory is taking a contrary set which may become too inveterate for\ncorrection. Mr. Madison will probably leave something, but I believe,\nonly particular passages of our history, and these chiefly confined\nto the period between the dissolution of the old and commencement of\nthe new government, which is peculiarly within his knowledge. After he\njoined me in the administration, he had no leisure to write. This, too,\nwas my case. But although I had not time to prepare anything express,\nmy letters, (all preserved) will furnish the daily occurrences and views\nfrom my return from Europe in 1790, till I retired finally from office.\nThese will command more conviction than anything I could have written\nafter my retirement; no day having ever passed during that period without\na letter to somebody, written too in the moment, and in the warmth and\nfreshness of fact and feeling, they will carry internal evidence that\nwhat they breathe is genuine. Selections from these, after my death, may\ncome out successively as the maturity of circumstances may render their\nappearance seasonable. But multiplied testimony, multiplied views will\nbe necessary to give solid establishment to truth. Much is known to one\nwhich is not known to another, and no one knows everything. It is the\nsum of individual knowledge which is to make up the whole truth, and\nto give its correct current through future time. Then do not, dear Sir,\nwithhold your stock of information; and I would moreover recommend that\nyou trust it not to a single copy, nor to a single depository. Leave\nit not in the power of any one person, under the distempered view of\nan unlucky moment, to deprive us of the weight of your testimony, and\nto purchase, by its destruction, the favor of any party or person, as\nhappened with a paper of Dr. Franklin's.\n\nI cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of the subjects of\nmy former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much\nas the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore\nunalarming, instrumentality of the supreme court. This is the form in\nwhich federalism now arrays itself, and consolidation is the present\nprinciple of distinction between republicans and the pseudo-republicans\nbut real federalists. I must comfort myself with the hope that the judges\nwill see the importance and the duty of giving their country the only\nevidence they can give of fidelity to its constitution and integrity in\nthe administration of its laws; that is to say, by every one's giving his\nopinion _seriatim_ and publicly on the cases he decides. Let him prove\nby his reasoning that he has read the papers, that he has considered\nthe case, that in the application of the law to it, he uses his own\njudgment independently and unbiased by party views and personal favor\nor disfavor. Throw himself in every case on God and his country; both\nwill excuse him for error and value him for his honesty. The very idea\nof cooking up opinions in conclave, begets suspicions that something\npasses which fears the public ear, and this, spreading by degrees, must\nproduce at some time abridgment of tenure, facility of removal, or some\nother modification which may promise a remedy. For in truth there is\nat this time more hostility to the federal judiciary, than to any other\norgan of the government.\n\nI should greatly prefer, as you do, four judges to any greater number.\nGreat lawyers are not over abundant, and the multiplication of judges\nonly enable the weak to out-vote the wise, and three concurrent opinions\nout of four gives a strong presumption of right.\n\nI cannot better prove my entire confidence in your candor, than by the\nfrankness with which I commit myself to you, and to this I add with\ntruth, assurances of the sincerity of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, March 10, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The sight of your well known hand writing in your favor of\n25th February last, gave me great pleasure, as it proved your arm to be\nrestored, and your pen still manageable. May it continue till you shall\nbecome as perfect a Calvinist as I am in one particular. Poor Calvin's\ninfirmities, his rheumatism, his gouts and sciatics, made him frequently\ncry out, _Mon dieu, jusqu'\u00e0 quand_. Lord, how long! Prat, once chief\njustice of New York, always tormented with infirmities, dreamt that he\nwas situated on a single rock in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean. He\nheard a voice:\n\n \"Why mourns the bard, Apollo bids thee rise,\n Renounce the dust, and claim thy native skies.\"\n\nThe ladies' visit to Monticello has put my readers in requisition to read\nto me Simons' travels in Switzerland. I thought I had some knowledge of\nthat country before, but I find I had no idea of it. How degenerated are\nthe Swiss. They might defend their country against France, Austria, and\nRussia; neither of whom ought to be suffered to march armies over their\nmountains. Those powers have practiced as much tyranny, and immorality,\nas even the emperor Napoleon did over them, or over the royalists of\nGermany or Italy.\n\nNeither France, Austria, or Spain, ought to have a foot of land in Italy.\nAll conquerors are alike. Every one of them. _Jura negat sibi lati,\nnihil non arrogat armis._ We have nothing but fables concerning Theseus,\nBacchus, and Hercules, and even Sesostris; but I dare say that every\none of them was as tyrannical and immoral as Napoleon. Nebuchadnezzar\nis the first great conqueror of whom we have anything like history, and\nhe was as great as any of them. Alexander and C\u00e6sar were more immoral\nthan Napoleon. Zingis Khan was as great a conqueror as any of them, and\ndestroyed as many millions of lives, and thought he had a right to the\nwhole globe, if he could subdue it.\n\nWhat are we to think of the crusades in which three millions of lives\nat least were probably sacrificed. And what right had St. Louis and\nRichard C\u0153ur de Lion to Palestine and Syria more than Alexander to\nIndia, or Napoleon to Egypt and Italy? Right and justice have hard fare\nin this world, but there is a power above who is capable and willing to\nput all things right in the end; _et pour mettre chacun \u00e0 sa place dans\nl'universe_, and I doubt not he will.\n\nMr. English, a Bostonian, has published a volume of his expedition with\nIshmael Pashaw, up the river Nile. He advanced above the third cataract,\nand opens a prospect of a resurrection from the dead of those vast and\nancient countries of Abyssinia and Ethiopia; a free communication with\nIndia, and the river Niger, and the city of Tombuctoo. This, however, is\nconjecture and speculation rather than certainty; but a free communication\nby land between Europe and India will ere long be opened. A few American\nsteamboats, and our Quincy stone-cutters would soon make the Nile as\nnavigable as our Hudson, Potomac, or Mississippi. You see as my reason\nand intellect fails, my imagination grows more wild and ungovernable,\nbut my friendship remains the same. Adieu.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 11, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I may continue\nin life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation\nof, \"_Mon Dieu! jusqu'\u00e0 quand!_\" would make me immortal. I can never join\nCalvin in addressing _his God_. He was indeed an atheist, which I can\nnever be; or rather his religion was d\u00e6monism. If ever man worshipped a\nfalse God, he did. The being described in his five points, is not the\nGod whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the creator and benevolent\ngovernor of the world; but a d\u00e6mon of malignant spirit. It would be more\npardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the\natrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed, I think that every Christian sect\ngives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without\na revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a\nGod. Now one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians; the\nother five-sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian\nrevelation, are without a knowledge of the existence of a God! This gives\ncompletely a _gain de cause_ to the disciples of Ocellus, Tim\u00e6us, Spinosa,\nDiderot and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on as triumphant and\nunanswerable is, that in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit\nan eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound\nphilosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty\nwhen one will suffice. They say then, that it is more simple to believe\nat once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going\non, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see\nand witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior\ncause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not and know not,\nof whose form, substance and mode, or place of existence, or of action,\nno sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or\ncomprehend. On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that\nwhen we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular,\nit is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction\nof design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its\ncomposition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in\ntheir course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the\nstructure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and\natmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest\nparticles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as\nman or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is\nimpossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in\nall this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator\nof all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator\nwhile permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration\ninto new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity\nof a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and\norder. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view;\ncomets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets,\nand require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are\nbecome extinct; and were there no restoring power, all existences might\nextinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a\nshapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent\nand powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed\nthrough all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million\nat least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a\ncreator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe. Surely this\nunanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in\nthe other hypothesis. Some early Christians, indeed, have believed in\nthe co-eternal pre-existence of both the creator and the world, without\nchanging their relation of cause and effect. That this was the opinion of\nSt. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleta, in these words: \"_Deus ab\n\u00e6terno fuit jam omnipotens, sicut cum produxit mundum. Ab \u00e6terno potuit\nproducere mundum. Si sol ab \u00e6terno esset, lumen ab \u00e6terno esset; et si\npes, similiter vestigium. At lumen et vestigium effectus sunt efficientis\nsolis et pedis; potuit ergo cum causa \u00e6terna effectus co-\u00e6terna esse.\nCujus sententia est S. Thomas theologorum primus._\"--Cardinal Toleta.\n\nOf the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us, that \"God\nis a spirit.\" 4. John 24. But without defining what a spirit is: \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f41\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 Down to the third century, we know it was still deemed material; but\nof a lighter, subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen, \"_Deus\nigitur, cui anima similis est, juxta originem, reapte corporalis est;\nsed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus_.\" These are the words\nof Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says, \"_appellatio_\n\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 _apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita_.\" So also\nTertullian; \"_quis autem negabit deum esse corpus etsi deus spiritus?\nSpiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in sua effigie._\"--Tertullian.\nThese two fathers were of the third century. Calvin's character of\nthis Supreme Being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But the\nreformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those\nmore worthy, pure, and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of\nJesus in his discourses to the Jews; and his doctrine of the cosmogony\nof the world is very clearly laid down in the three first verses of the\nfirst chapter of John, in these words: \"\u1f18\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd.\n\u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f13\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd.\"\nWhich truly translated means, \"In the beginning God existed, and reason\n[or mind] was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning\nwith God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one\nthing which was made.\" Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine\nof Jesus, that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being,\nhas been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person\nof their tritheism, by a mistranslation of the word \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. One of its\nlegitimate meanings, indeed, is \"a word.\" But in that sense it makes an\nunmeaning jargon; while the other meaning, \"reason,\" equally legitimate,\nexplains rationally the eternal pre-existence of God, and his creation\nof the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that \"a word,\" the\nmere action or articulation of the organs of speech could create a world,\nthey undertook to make of this articulation a second pre-existing being,\nand ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. The\natheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the\nsimpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is, that the\ngreatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those, calling themselves\nthe expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a\nsystem of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in\nhis genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of\nJesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will\nbe classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of\nJupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason, and freedom of thought\nin these United States, will do away all this artificial scaffolding,\nand restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most\nvenerated reformer of human errors.\n\nSo much for your quotation of Calvin's \"_mon Dieu! jusqu'\u00e0 quand!_\"\nin which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join\nyou cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than\nreluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient\ncolleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation, \"well done,\ngood and faithful servants.\"\n\n\nTO GENERAL SAMUEL SMITH.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 3, 1823.\n\nDEAR GENERAL,--I duly received your favor of the 24th ult. But I am\nrendered a slow correspondent by the loss of the use, totally of the one,\nand almost totally of the other wrist, which renders writing scarcely and\npainfully practicable. I learn with great satisfaction that wholesome\neconomies have been found, sufficient to relieve us from the ruinous\nnecessity of adding annually to our debt by new loans. The deviser of so\nsalutary a relief deserves truly well of his country. I shall be glad,\ntoo, if an additional tax of one-fourth of a dollar a gallon on whiskey\nshall enable us to meet all our engagements with punctuality. Viewing\nthat tax as an article in a system of excise, I was once glad to see it\nfall with the rest of the system, which I considered as prematurely and\nunnecessarily introduced. It was evident that our existing taxes were\n_then_ equal to our existing debts. It was clearly foreseen also that\nthe surplus from excise would only become aliment for useless offices,\nand would be swallowed in idleness by those whom it would withdraw\nfrom useful industry. Considering it only as a fiscal measure, this was\nright. But the prostration of body and mind which the cheapness of this\nliquor is spreading through the mass of our citizens, now calls the\nattention of the legislator on a very different principle. One of his\nimportant duties is as guardian of those who from causes susceptible of\nprecise definition, cannot take care of themselves. Such are infants,\nmaniacs, gamblers, drunkards. The last, as much as the maniac, requires\nrestrictive measures to save him from the fatal infatuation under which\nhe is destroying his health, his morals, his family, and his usefulness\nto society. One powerful obstacle to his ruinous self-indulgence would\nbe a price beyond his competence. As a sanatory measure, therefore,\nit becomes one of duty in the public guardians. Yet I do not think it\nfollows necessarily that imported spirits should be subjected to similar\nenhancement, until they become as cheap as those made at home. A tax\non whiskey is to discourage its consumption; a tax on foreign spirits\nencourages whiskey by removing its rival from competition. The price\nand present duty throw foreign spirits already out of competition with\nwhiskey, and accordingly they are used but to a salutary extent. You see\nno persons besotting themselves with imported spirits, wines, liquors,\ncordials, &c. Whiskey claims to itself alone the exclusive office of\nsot-making. Foreign spirits, wines, teas, coffee, segars, salt, are\narticles of as innocent consumption as broadcloths and silks and ought,\nlike them, to pay but the average _ad valorem_ duty of other imported\ncomforts. All of them are ingredients in our happiness, and the government\nwhich steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption\nto select and lay under disproportionate burthens a particular one,\nbecause it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste, or necessary to health,\nand will therefore be bought, is, in that particular, a tyranny. Taxes\non consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be\nuniform. I do not mean to say that it may not be for the general interest\nto foster for awhile certain infant manufactures, until they are strong\nenough to stand against foreign rivals; but when evident that they will\nnever be so, it is against right, to make the other branches of industry\nsupport them. When it was found that France could not make sugar under\n6 h. a lb., was it not tyranny to restrain her citizens from importing\nat 1 h.? or would it not have been so to have laid a duty of 5 h. on the\nimported? The permitting an exchange of industries with other nations\nis a direct encouragement of your own, which without that, would bring\nyou nothing for your comfort, and would of course cease to be produced.\n\nOn the question of the next Presidential election, I am a mere looker on.\nI never permit myself to express an opinion, or to feel a wish on the\nsubject. I indulge a single hope only, that the choice may fall on one\nwho will be a friend of peace, of economy, of the republican principles\nof our constitution, and of the salutary distribution of powers made by\nthat between the general and the local governments, to this, I ever add\nsincere prayers for your happiness and prosperity.\n\n\nTO MR. MEGEAR.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 29, 1823.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for the copy of the letters of Paul and Amicus, which\nyou have been so kind as to send me, and shall learn from them with\nsatisfaction the peculiar tenets of the Friends, and particularly their\nopinions on the incomprehensibilities (otherwise called the mysteries)\nof the trinity. I think with them on many points, and especially on\nmissionary and Bible societies. While we have so many around us, within\nthe same social pale, who need instruction and assistance, why carry to\na distance, and to strangers what our own neighbors need? It is a duty\ncertainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that\nthey are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective\nwants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not, to\npersons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account,\nwhen we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents\nwe know, and to supply wants we see? I do not know that it is a duty to\ndisturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who\nmay think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies\nto which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for\nit. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some\nthousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect\nthat we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace\nand faith. I salute you in the spirit of peace and good will.\n\n\nTO THE PRESIDENT.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 11, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Considering that I had not been to Bedford for a twelvemonth\nbefore, I thought myself singularly unfortunate in so timing my journey,\nas to have been absent exactly at the moment of your late visit to\nour neighborhood. The loss, indeed, was all my own; for in these short\ninterviews with you, I generally get my political compass rectified, learn\nfrom you whereabouts we are, and correct my course again. In exchange for\nthis, I can give you but newspaper ideas, and little indeed of these, for\nI read but a single paper, and that hastily. I find Horace and Tacitus\nso much better writers than the champions of the gazettes, that I lay\nthose down to take up these with great reluctance. And on the question\nyou propose, whether we can, in any form, take a bolder attitude than\nformerly in favor of liberty, I can give you but commonplace ideas.\nThey will be but the widow's mite, and offered only because requested.\nThe matter which now embroils Europe, the presumption of dictating to\nan independent nation the form of its government, is so arrogant, so\natrocious, that indignation, as well as moral sentiment, enlists all\nour partialities and prayers in favor of one, and our equal execrations\nagainst the other. I do not know, indeed, whether all nations do not owe\nto one another a bold and open declaration of their sympathies with the\none party, and their detestation of the conduct of the other. But farther\nthan this we are not bound to go; and indeed, for the sake of the world,\nwe ought not to increase the jealousies, or draw on ourselves the power\nof this formidable confederacy. I have ever deemed it fundamental for\nthe United States, never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe.\nTheir political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual\njealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their\nforms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are\nnations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction\nof the labor, property and lives of their people. On our part, never\nhad a people so favorable a chance of trying the opposite system, of\npeace and fraternity with mankind, and the direction of all our means\nand faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction.\nWith Europe we have few occasions of collision, and these, with a little\nprudence and forbearance, may be generally accommodated. Of the brethren\nof our own hemisphere, none are yet, or for an age to come will be, in\na shape, condition, or disposition to war against us. And the foothold\nwhich the nations of Europe had in either America, is slipping from under\nthem, so that we shall soon be rid of their neighborhood. Cuba alone\nseems at present to hold up a speck of war to us. Its possession by Great\nBritain would indeed be a great calamity to us. Could we induce her to\njoin us in guaranteeing its independence against all the world, _except_\nSpain, it would be nearly as valuable to us as if it were our own. But\nshould she take it, I would not immediately go to war for it; because\nthe first war on other accounts will give it to us; or the island will\ngive itself to us, when able to do so. While no duty, therefore, calls\non us to take part in the present war of Europe, and a golden harvest\noffers itself in reward for doing nothing, peace and neutrality seem\nto be our duty and interest. We may gratify ourselves, indeed, with a\nneutrality as partial to Spain as would be justifiable without giving\ncause of war to her adversary; we might and ought to avail ourselves of\nthe happy occasion of procuring and cementing a cordial reconciliation\nwith her, by giving assurance of every friendly office which neutrality\nadmits, and especially, against all apprehension of our intermeddling\nin the quarrel with her colonies. And I expect daily and confidently to\nhear of a spark kindled in France, which will employ her at home, and\nrelieve Spain from all further apprehensions of danger.\n\nThat England is playing false with Spain cannot be doubted. Her government\nis looking one way and rowing another. It is curious to look back a little\non past events. During the ascendancy of Bonaparte, the word among the\nherd of kings, was \"_sauve qui peut_.\" Each shifted for himself, and\nleft his brethren to squander and do the same as they could. After the\nbattle of Waterloo, and the military possession of France, they rallied\nand combined in common cause, to maintain each other against any similar\nand future danger. And in this alliance, Louis, now avowedly, and George,\nsecretly but solidly, were of the contracting parties; and there can be\nno doubt that the allies are bound by treaty to aid England with their\narmies, should insurrection take place among her people. The coquetry\nshe is now playing off between her people and her allies is perfectly\nunderstood by the latter, and accordingly gives no apprehensions to\nFrance, to whom it is all explained. The diplomatic correspondence she is\nnow displaying, these double papers fabricated merely for exhibition, in\nwhich she makes herself talk of morals and principle, as if her qualms of\nconscience would not permit her to go all lengths with her Holy Allies,\nare all to gull her own people. It is a theatrical farce, in which the\nfive powers are the actors, England the Tartuffe, and her people the\ndupes. Playing thus so dextrously into each others' hands, and their\nown persons seeming secured, they are now looking to their privileged\norders. These faithful auxiliaries, or accomplices, must be saved. This\nwar is evidently that of the general body of the aristocracy, in which\nEngland is also acting her part. \"Save but the Nobles and there shall be\nno war,\" says she, masking her measures at the same time under the form\nof friendship and mediation, and hypocritically, while a party, offering\nherself as a judge, to betray those whom she is not permitted openly to\noppose. A fraudulent neutrality, if neutrality at all, is all Spain will\nget from her. And Spain, probably, perceives this, and willingly winks\nat it rather than have her weight thrown openly into the other scale.\n\nBut I am going beyond my text, and sinning against the adage of carrying\ncoals to Newcastle. In hazarding to you my crude and uninformed notions\nof things beyond my cognizance, only be so good as to remember that it\nis at your request, and with as little confidence on my part as profit\non yours. You will do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act\ntheir follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith\nthe paths of peace and prosperity. To your judgment we are willingly\nresigned, with sincere assurances of affectionate esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO JUDGE JOHNSON.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 12, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Our correspondence is of that accommodating character,\nwhich admits of suspension at the convenience of either party, without\ninconvenience to the other. Hence this tardy acknowledgment of your favor\nof April the 11th. I learn from that with great pleasure, that you have\nresolved on continuing your history of parties. Our opponents are far\nahead of us in preparations for placing their cause favorably before\nposterity. Yet I hope even from some of them the escape of precious\ntruths, in angry explosions or effusions of vanity, which will betray\nthe genuine monarchism of their principles. They do not themselves\nbelieve what they endeavor to inculcate, that we were an opposition\nparty, not on principle, but merely seeking for office. The fact is,\nthat at the formation of our government, many had formed their political\nopinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience\nof old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to\nbe a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that\nmen in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of\norder and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them\nby authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of\nkings, hereditary nobles, and priests. Still further to constrain the\nbrute force of the people, they deem it necessary to keep them down by\nhard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees,\nso much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary\nto obtain a sufficient surplus barely to sustain a scanty and miserable\nlife. And these earnings they apply to maintain their privileged orders\nin splendor and idleness, to fascinate the eyes of the people, and\nexcite in them an humble adoration and submission, as to an order of\nsuperior beings. Although few among us had gone all these lengths of\nopinion, yet many had advanced, some more, some less, on the way. And\nin the convention which formed our government, they endeavored to draw\nthe cords of power as tight as they could obtain them, to lessen the\ndependence of the general functionaries on their constituents, to subject\nto them those of the States, and to weaken their means of maintaining\nthe steady equilibrium which the majority of the convention had deemed\nsalutary for both branches, general and local. To recover, therefore, in\npractice the powers which the nation had refused, and to warp to their\nown wishes those actually given, was the steady object of the federal\nparty. Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the will of the majority\nof the convention, and of the people themselves. We believed, with them,\nthat man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with\nan innate sense of justice; and that he could be restrained from wrong\nand protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his\nown choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will. We\nbelieved that the complicated organization of kings, nobles, and priests,\nwas not the wisest nor best to effect the happiness of associated man;\nthat wisdom and virtue were not hereditary; that the trappings of such a\nmachinery, consumed by their expense, those earnings of industry, they\nwere meant to protect, and, by the inequalities they produced, exposed\nliberty to sufferance. We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security\nthe full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests\non the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves, and\nto follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely\ngoverned, than with minds nourished in error, and vitiated and debased,\nas in Europe, by ignorance, indigence and oppression. The cherishment of\nthe people then was our principle, the fear and distrust of them, that\nof the other party. Composed, as we were, of the landed and laboring\ninterests of the country, we could not be less anxious for a government\nof law and order than were the inhabitants of the cities, the strongholds\nof federalism. And whether our efforts to save the principles and form\nof our constitution have not been salutary, let the present republican\nfreedom, order and prosperity of our country determine. History may\ndistort truth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts\nat justification of those who are conscious of needing it most. Nor\nwill the opening scenes of our present government be seen in their true\naspect, until the letters of the day, now held in private hoards, shall\nbe broken up and laid open to public view. What a treasure will be found\nin General Washington's cabinet, when it shall pass into the hands of\nas candid a friend to truth as he was himself! When no longer, like\nC\u00e6sar's notes and memorandums in the hands of Anthony, it shall be open\nto the high priests of federalism only, and garbled to say so much, and\nno more, as suits their views!\n\nWith respect to his farewell address, to the authorship of which, it\nseems, there are conflicting claims, I can state to you some facts. He\nhad determined to decline a re-election at the end of his first term,\nand so far determined, that he had requested Mr. Madison to prepare for\nhim something valedictory, to be addressed to his constituents on his\nretirement. This was done, but he was finally persuaded to acquiesce\nin a second election, to which no one more strenuously pressed him than\nmyself, from a conviction of the importance of strengthening, by longer\nhabit, the respect necessary for that office, which the weight of his\ncharacter only could effect. When, at the end of this second term, his\nValedictory came out, Mr. Madison recognized in it several passages of\nhis draught, several others, we were both satisfied, were from the pen\nof Hamilton, and others from that of the President himself. These he\nprobably put into the hands of Hamilton to form into a whole, and hence\nit may all appear in Hamilton's hand-writing, as if it were all of his\ncomposition.\n\nI have stated above, that the original objects of the federalists were,\n1st, to warp our government more to the form and principles of monarchy,\nand, 2d, to weaken the barriers of the State governments as co\u00f6rdinate\npowers. In the first they have been so completely foiled by the universal\nspirit of the nation, that they have abandoned the enterprise, shrunk from\nthe odium of their old appellation, taken to themselves a participation\nof ours, and under the pseudo-republican mask, are now aiming at their\nsecond object, and strengthened by unsuspecting or apostate recruits from\nour ranks, are advancing fast towards an ascendancy. I have been blamed\nfor saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would\none day call for reformation or _revolution_. I answer by asking if a\nsingle State of the Union would have agreed to the constitution, had it\ngiven all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to\nit did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State, of being\nsubjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there\nis any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then, to\nacquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to\na consolidated government, one and undivided?\n\nYou request me confidentially, to examine the question, whether the\nSupreme Court has advanced beyond its constitutional limits, and\ntrespassed on those of the State authorities? I do not undertake it, my\ndear Sir, because I am unable. Age and the wane of mind consequent on\nit, have disqualified me from investigations so severe, and researches\nso laborious. And it is the less necessary in this case, as having been\nalready done by others with a logic and learning to which I could add\nnothing. On the decision of the case of Cohens vs. The State of Virginia,\nin the Supreme Court of the United States, in March, 1821, Judge Roane,\nunder the signature of Algernon Sidney, wrote for the Enquirer a series\nof papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as\nthey came out, and confess that they appeared to me to pulverize every\nword which had been delivered by Judge Marshall, of the extra-judicial\npart of his opinion; and all was extra-judicial, except the decision\nthat the act of Congress had not purported to give to the corporation\nof Washington the authority claimed by their lottery law, of controlling\nthe laws of the States within the States themselves. But unable to claim\nthat case, he could not let it go entirely, but went on gratuitously to\nprove, that notwithstanding the eleventh amendment of the constitution,\na State _could_ be brought as a defendant, to the bar of his court; and\nagain, that Congress might authorize a corporation of its territory to\nexercise legislation within a State, and paramount to the laws of that\nState. I cite the sum and result only of his doctrines, according to\nthe impression made on my mind at the time, and still remaining. If not\nstrictly accurate in circumstance, it is so in substance. This doctrine\nwas so completely refuted by Roane, that if he can be answered, I\nsurrender human reason as a vain and useless faculty, given to bewilder,\nand not to guide us. And I mention this particular case as one only of\nseveral, because it gave occasion to that thorough examination of the\nconstitutional limits between the General and State jurisdictions, which\nyou have asked for. There were two other writers in the same paper, under\nthe signatures of Fletcher of Saltoun, and Somers, who, in a few essays,\npresented some very luminous and striking views of the question. And\nthere was a particular paper which recapitulated all the cases in which\nit was thought the federal court had usurped on the State jurisdictions.\nThese essays will be found in the Enquirers of 1821, from May the 10th\nto July the 13th. It is not in my present power to send them to you,\nbut if Ritchie can furnish them, I will procure and forward them. If\nthey had been read in the other States, as they were here, I think they\nwould have left, there as here, no dissentients from their doctrine. The\nsubject was taken up by our legislature of 1821-'22, and two draughts of\nremonstrances were prepared and discussed. As well as I remember, there\nwas no difference of opinion as to the matter of right; but there was\nas to the expediency of a remonstrance at that time, the general mind\nof the States being then under extraordinary excitement by the Missouri\nquestion; and it was dropped on that consideration. But this case is\nnot dead, it only sleepeth. The Indian Chief said he did not go to war\nfor every petty injury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when\nthat was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more\npeaceable and rational mode of redress.\n\nThis practice of Judge Marshall, of travelling out of his case to\nprescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court,\nis very irregular and very censurable. I recollect another instance,\nand the more particularly, perhaps, because it in some measure bore on\nmyself. Among the midnight appointments of Mr. Adams, were commissions\nto some federal justices of the peace for Alexandria. These were signed\nand sealed by him, but not delivered. I found them on the table of the\ndepartment of State, on my entrance into office, and I forbade their\ndelivery. Marbury, named in one of them, applied to the Supreme Court\nfor a mandamus to the Secretary of State, (Mr. Madison) to deliver\nthe commission intended for him. The Court determined at once, that\nbeing an original process, they had no cognizance of it; and therefore\nthe question before them was ended. But the Chief Justice went on to\nlay down what the law would be, had they jurisdiction of the case,\nto-wit: that they should command the delivery. The object was clearly\nto instruct any other court having the jurisdiction, what they should\ndo if Marbury should apply to them. Besides the impropriety of this\ngratuitous interference, could anything exceed the perversion of law?\nFor if there is any principle of law never yet contradicted, it is that\ndelivery is one of the essentials to the validity of a deed. Although\nsigned and sealed, yet as long as it remains in the hands of the party\nhimself, it is in _fieri_ only, it is not a deed, and can be made so\nonly by its delivery. In the hands of a third person it may be made an\nescrow. But whatever is in the executive offices is certainly deemed to\nbe in the hands of the President; and in this case, was actually in my\nhands, because, when I countermanded them, there was as yet no Secretary\nof State. Yet this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by\nbench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on\nits being merely an _obiter_ dissertation of the Chief Justice.\n\nIt may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which\nshall decide at once, and with precision, in every case, this limit of\njurisdiction. But there are two canons which will guide us safely in most\nof the cases. 1st. The capital and leading object of the constitution\nwas to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own\ncitizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected\ncitizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves,\nbut one as to all others. In the latter case, then, constructions should\nlean to the general jurisdiction, if the words will bear it; and in\nfavor of the States in the former, if possible to be so construed. And\nindeed, between citizens and citizens of the same State, and under their\nown laws, I know but a single case in which a jurisdiction is given to\nthe General Government. That is, where anything but gold or silver is\nmade a lawful tender, or the obligation of contracts is any otherwise\nimpaired. The separate legislatures had so often abused that power, that\nthe citizens themselves chose to trust it to the general, rather than to\ntheir own special authorities. 2d. On every question of construction,\ncarry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted,\nrecollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying\nwhat meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,\nconform to the probable one in which it was passed. Let us try Cohen's\ncase by these canons only, referring always, however, for full argument,\nto the essays before cited.\n\n1. It was between a citizen and his own State, and under a law of his\nState. It was a domestic case, therefore, and not a foreign one.\n\n2. Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against\nthe General Government, at the adoption of the constitution, the States\nmeant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral\nduties and restraining vice, within their own territory? And this is\nthe present case, that of Cohen being under the ancient and general law\nof gaming. Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral\nrule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority,\nor to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning\nof words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on\ninference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention\nwas impossible, and such a licentiousness of construction and inference,\nif exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would\nequally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and\nbreak up the foundations of the Union. Laws are made for men of ordinary\nunderstanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules\nof common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical\nsubtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at\npleasure. It should be left to the sophisms of advocates, whose trade it\nis, to prove that a defendant is a plaintiff, though dragged into court,\n_torto collo_, like Bonaparte's volunteers, into the field in chains,\nor that a power has been given, because it ought to have been given, _et\nalia talia_. The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had\nsecured themselves against constructive powers. They were not lessoned\nyet by Cohen's case, nor aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the\nlaw. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor\nyet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home\nconcerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore,\nto see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by\nthe constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices\ntransferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of\nthe people, they may more secretly he bought and sold as at market.\n\nBut the Chief Justice says, \"there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.\"\nTrue, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate\narbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in\nconvention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.\nLet them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two\nof their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of\nour constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of\nother nations is at once to force.\n\nI rejoice in the example you set of _seriatim_ opinions. I have heard it\noften noticed, and always with high approbation. Some of your brethren\nwill be encouraged to follow it occasionally, and in time, it may be\nfelt by all as a duty, and the sound practice of the primitive court\nbe again restored. Why should not every judge be asked his opinion, and\ngive it from the bench, if only by yea or nay? Besides ascertaining the\nfact of his opinion, which the public have a right to know, in order\nto judge whether it is impeachable or not, it would show whether the\nopinions were unanimous or not, and thus settle more exactly the weight\nof their authority.\n\nThe close of my second sheet warns me that it is time now to relieve\nyou from this letter of unmerciful length. Indeed, I wonder how I have\naccomplished it, with two crippled wrists, the one scarcely able to move\nmy pen, the other to hold my paper. But I am hurried sometimes beyond\nthe sense of pain, when unbosoming myself to friends who harmonize\nwith me in principle. You and I may differ occasionally in details of\nminor consequence, as no two minds, more than two faces, are the same\nin every feature. But our general objects are the same, to preserve the\nrepublican form and principles of our constitution and cleave to the\nsalutary distribution of powers which that has established. These are\nthe two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be\nin danger of foundering. To my prayers for its safety and perpetuity, I\nadd those for the continuation of your health, happiness, and usefulness\nto your country.\n\n\nTO PRESIDENT MONROE.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 23, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have been lately visited by a Mr. Miralla, a native of\nBuenos Ayres, but resident in Cuba for the last seven or eight years; a\nperson of intelligence, of much information, and frankly communicative. I\nbelieve, indeed, he is known to you. I availed myself of the opportunity\nof learning what was the state of public sentiment in Cuba as to their\nfuture course. He says they would be satisfied to remain as they are; but\nall are sensible that that cannot be; that whenever circumstances shall\nrender a separation from Spain necessary, a perfect independence would\nbe their choice, provided they could see a certainty of protection; but\nthat, without that prospect, they would be divided in opinion between\nan incorporation with Mexico, and with the United States.--Columbia\nbeing too remote for prompt support. The considerations in favor of\nMexico are that the Havana would be the emporium for all the produce of\nthat immense and wealthy country, and of course, the medium of all its\ncommerce; that having no ports on its eastern coast, Cuba would become\nthe dep\u00f4t of its naval stores and strength, and, in effect, would, in\na great measure, have the sinews of the government in its hands. That\nin favor of the United States is the fact that three-fourths of the\nexportations from Havana come to the United States, that they are a\nsettled government, the power which can most promptly succor them, rising\nto an eminence promising future security; and of which they would make\na member of the sovereignty, while as to England, they would be only\na colony, subordinated to her interest, and that there is not a man in\nthe island who would not resist her to the bitterest extremity. Of this\nlast sentiment I had not the least idea at the date of my late letters\nto you. I had supposed an English interest there quite as strong as that\nof the United States, and therefore, that, to avoid war, and keep the\nisland open to our own commerce, it would be best to join that power in\nmutually guaranteeing its independence. But if there is no danger of\nits falling into the possession of England, I must retract an opinion\nfounded on an error of fact. We are surely under no obligation to give\nher, gratis, an interest which she has not; and the whole inhabitants\nbeing averse to her, and the climate mortal to strangers, its continued\nmilitary occupation by her would be impracticable. It is better then to\nlie still in readiness to receive that interesting incorporation when\nsolicited by herself. For, certainly, her addition to our confederacy\nis exactly what is wanting to round our power as a nation to the point\nof its utmost interest.\n\nI have thought it my duty to acknowledge my error on this occasion, and\nto repeat a truth before acknowledged, that, retired as I am, I know too\nlittle of the affairs of the world to form opinions of them worthy of\nany attention; and I resign myself with reason, and perfect confidence\nto the care and guidance of those to whom the helm is committed. With\nthis assurance, accept that of my constant and affectionate friendship\nand respect.\n\n\nTO GEORGE TICKNOR.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 16, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received in due time your favor of June 16th, and with it\nyour Syllabus of lectures on Spanish literature. I have considered this\nwith great interest and satisfaction, as it gives me a model of course\nI wish to see pursued in the different branches of instruction in our\nUniversity, _i. e._ a methodical, critical, and profound explanation by\nway of protection of every science we propose to teach. I am not fully\ninformed of the practices at Harvard, but there is one from which we\nshall certainly vary, although it has been copied, I believe, by nearly\nevery college and academy in the United States. That is, the holding\nthe students all to one prescribed course of reading, and disallowing\nexclusive application to those branches only which are to qualify them\nfor the particular vocations to which they are destined. We shall,\non the contrary, allow them uncontrolled choice in the lectures they\nshall choose to attend, and require elementary qualification only, and\nsufficient age. Our institution will proceed on the principle of doing\nall the good it can without consulting its own pride or ambition; of\nletting every one come and listen to whatever he thinks may improve the\ncondition of his mind. The rock which I most dread is the discipline\nof the institution, and it is that on which most of our public schools\nlabor. The insubordination of our youth is now the greatest obstacle to\ntheir education. We may lessen the difficulty, perhaps, by avoiding too\nmuch government, by requiring no useless observances, none which shall\nmerely multiply occasions for dissatisfaction, disobedience and revolt\nby referring to the more discreet of themselves the minor discipline,\nthe graver to the civil magistrates, as in Edinburg. On this head I am\nanxious for information of the practices of other places, having myself\nhad little experience of the government of youth. I presume there are\nprinted codes of the rules of Harvard, and if so, you would oblige me\nby sending me a copy, and of those of any other academy which you think\ncan furnish anything useful. You flatter me with a visit \"as soon as you\nlearn that the University is fairly opened.\" A visit from you at any time\nwill be the most welcome possible to all our family, who remember with\npeculiar satisfaction the pleasure they received from your former one.\nBut were I allowed to name the time, it should not be deferred beyond\nthe autumn of the ensuing year. Our last building, and that which will\nbe the principal ornament and keystone, giving unity to the whole, will\nthen be nearly finished, and afford you a gratification compensating the\ntrouble of the journey. We shall then, also, be engaged in our code of\nregulations preparatory to our opening, which may, perhaps, take place\nin the beginning of 1825. There is no person from whose information of\nthe European institutions, and especially their discipline, I should\nexpect so much aid in that difficult work. Come, then, dear Sir, at that,\nor any earlier epoch, and give to our institution the benefit of your\ncounsel. I know that you scout, as I do, the idea of any rivalship. Our\nviews are Catholic for the improvement of our country by science, and\nindeed, it is better even for your own University to have its yoke nat\u00e8\nat this distance, rather than to force a nearer one from the increasing\nnecessity for it. And how long before we may expect others in the\nsouthern, western, and middle regions of this vast country?\n\nI send you by mail a print of the ground-plan of our institution; it\nmay give you some idea of its distribution and conveniences, but not of\nits architecture, which being chastely classical, constitutes one of its\ndistinguishing characters. I am much indebted for your kind attentions\nto Mr. Harrison; he is a youth of promise. I could not deny myself the\ngratification of communicating to his father the part of your letter\nrespecting him.\n\nOur family all join me in assurances of our friendly esteem and great\nrespect.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, August 15, 1823.\n\nWatchman, what of the night? Is darkness that may be felt, to prevail\nover the whole world? or can you perceive any rays of a returning dawn?\nIs the devil to be the \"Lord's anointed\" over the whole globe? or do you\nforesee the fulfilment of the prophecies according to Dr. Priestley's\ninterpretation of them? I know not, but I have in some of my familiar,\nand frivolous letters to you, told the story four times over; but if I\nhave, I never applied it so well as now.\n\nNot long after the denouement of the tragedy of Louis XVI, when I was\nVice-President, my friend the Doctor came to breakfast with me alone;\nhe was very sociable, very learned and eloquent, on the subject of the\nFrench revolution. It was opening a new era in the world, and presenting a\nnear view of the millennium. I listened; I heard with great attention and\nperfect _sang froid_. At last I asked the Doctor. Do you really believe\nthe French will establish a free democratical government in France? He\nanswered: I do firmly believe it. Will you give me leave to ask you upon\nwhat grounds you entertain this opinion? Is it from anything you ever read\nin history? Is there any instance of a Roman Catholic monarchy of five\nand twenty millions at once converted into a free and national people?\nNo. I know of no instance like it. Is there anything in your knowledge\nof human nature, derived from books, or experience, that any nation,\nancient or modern, consisting of such multitudes of ignorant people,\never were, or ever can be converted suddenly into materials capable of\nconducting a free government, especially a democratical republic? No--I\nknow nothing of the kind. Well then, Sir, what is the ground of your\nopinion? The answer was, my opinion is founded altogether upon revelation,\nand the prophecies. I take it that the ten horns of the great beast in\nrevelations, mean the ten crowned heads of Europe; and that the execution\nof the King of France, is the falling off of the first of those horns;\nand the nine monarchies of Europe will fall one after another in the same\nway. Such was the enthusiasm of that great man, that reasoning machine.\nAfter all, however, he did recollect himself so far as to say: There\nis, however, a possibility of doubt; for I read yesterday a book put\ninto my hands, by a gentleman, a volume of travels written by a French\ngentleman in 1659; in which he says he had been travelling a whole year\nin England; into every part of it, and conversed freely with all ranks\nof people; he found the whole nation earnestly engaged in discussing and\ncontriving a form of government for their future regulations; there was\nbut one point in which they all agreed, and in that they were unanimous:\nthat monarchy, nobility, and prelacy never would exist in England again.\nThe Doctor paused; and said: Yet, in the very next year, the whole nation\ncalled in the King and run mad with nobility, monarchy, and prelacy. I\nam no King killer; merely because they are Kings. Poor creatures; they\nknow no better; they believe sincerely and conscientiously that God made\nthem to rule the world. I would not, therefore, behead them, or send\nthem to St. Helena, to be treated as Bonaparte was; but I would shut\nthem up like the man in the iron mask; feed them well, give them as much\nfinery as they pleased, until they could be converted to right reason\nand common sense. I have nothing to communicate from this part of the\ncountry, except that you must not be surprised if you hear something\nwonderful in Boston before long. With my profound respects for your\nfamily, and half a century's affection for yourself, I am your humble\nservant.\n\n\nTO JAMES MADISON.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 30, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received the enclosed letters from the President with a\nrequest, that after perusal I would forward them to you for perusal by\nyourself also, and to be returned then to him.\n\nYou have doubtless seen Timothy Pickerings' fourth of July observations\non the Declaration of Independence. If his principles and prejudices,\npersonal and political, gave us no reason to doubt whether he had truly\nquoted the information he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams, I\nshould then say, that in some of the particulars, Mr. Adams' memory\nhas led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, and\nforty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is not\nwonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage of\nthat difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were it not\nsupported by written notes, taken by myself at the moment and on the\nspot. He says, \"the committee of five, to wit, Dr. Franklin, Sherman,\nLivingston, and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, and then appointed\nhim and myself to make the draught; that we, as a sub-committee, met,\nand after the urgencies of each on the other, I consented to undertake\nthe task; that the draught being made, we, the sub-committee, met,\nand conned the paper over, and he does not remember that he made or\nsuggested a single alteration.\" Now these details are quite incorrect.\nThe committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed,\nbut they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught.\nI consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I\ncommunicated it _separately_ to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting\ntheir corrections, because they were the two members of whose judgments\nand amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting\nit to the committee; and you have seen the original paper now in my\nhands, with the corrections of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in\ntheir own hand writings. Their alterations were two or three only, and\nmerely verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee,\nand from them, unaltered, to Congress. This personal communication and\nconsultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of\na sub-committee. Pickering's observations, and Mr. Adams' in addition,\n\"that it contained no new ideas, that it is a common-place compilation,\nits sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its\nessence contained in Otis' pamphlet,\" may all be true. Of that I am not\nto be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's\ntreatise on government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had\ngathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only\nthat I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not\nconsider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether,\nand to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before. Had\nMr. Adams been so restrained, Congress would have lost the benefit of\nhis bold and impressive advocations of the rights of Revolution. For no\nman's confident and fervid addresses, more than Mr. Adams', encouraged\nand supported us through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like\nthe ceaseless action of gravity weighed on us by night and by day. Yet,\non the same ground, we may ask what of these elevated thoughts was new,\nor can be affirmed never before to have entered the conceptions of man?\n\nWhether, also, the sentiments of Independence, and the reasons for\ndeclaring it, which make so great a portion of the instrument, had been\nhackneyed in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76, or\nthis dictum also of Mr. Adams be another slip of memory, let history\nsay. This, however, I will say for Mr. Adams, that he supported the\nDeclaration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for every word\nof it. As to myself, I thought it a duty to be, on that occasion, a\npassive auditor of the opinions of others, more impartial judges than\nI could be, of its merits or demerits. During the debate I was sitting\nby Doctor Franklin, and he observed that I was writhing a little under\nthe acrimonious criticisms on some of its parts; and it was on that\noccasion, that by way of comfort, he told me the story of John Thompson,\nthe hatter, and his new sign.\n\nTimothy thinks the instrument the better for having a fourth of\nit expunged. He would have thought it still better, had the other\nthree-fourths gone out also, all but the single sentiment (the only one\nhe approves), which recommends friendship to his dear England, whenever\nshe is willing to be at peace with us. His insinuations are, that although\n\"the high tone of the instrument was in unison with the warm feelings of\nthe times, this sentiment of habitual friendship to England should never\nbe forgotten, and that the duties it enjoins should _especially_ be borne\nin mind on every celebration of this anniversary.\" In other words, that\nthe Declaration, as being a libel on the government of England, composed\nin times of passion, should now be buried in utter oblivion, to spare\nthe feelings of our English friends and Angloman fellow-citizens. But\nit is not to wound them that we wish to keep it in mind; but to cherish\nthe principles of the instrument in the bosoms of our own citizens:\nand it is a heavenly comfort to see that these principles are yet so\nstrongly felt, as to render a circumstance so trifling as this little\nlapse of memory of Mr. Adams', worthy of being solemnly announced and\nsupported at an anniversary assemblage of the nation on its birthday. In\nopposition, however, to Mr. Pickering, I pray God that these principles\nmay be eternal, and close the prayer with my affectionate wishes for\nyourself of long life, health and happiness.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 4, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your letter of August the 15th was received in due time, and\nwith the welcome of everything which comes from you. With its opinions\non the difficulties of revolutions from despotism to freedom, I very much\nconcur. The generation which commences a revolution rarely completes it.\nHabituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mind to\ntheir kings and priests, they are not qualified when called on to think\nand provide for themselves; and their inexperience, their ignorance and\nbigotry make them instruments often, in the hands of the Bonapartes and\nIturbides, to defeat their own rights and purposes. This is the present\nsituation of Europe and Spanish America. But it is not desperate. The\nlight which has been shed on mankind by the art of printing, has eminently\nchanged the condition of the world. As yet, that light has dawned on the\nmiddling classes only of the men in Europe. The kings and the rabble,\nof equal ignorance, have not yet received its rays; but it continues\nto spread, and while printing is preserved, it can no more recede than\nthe sun return on his course. A first attempt to recover the right of\nself-government may fail, so may a second, a third, &c. But as a younger\nand more instructed race comes on, the sentiment becomes more and more\nintuitive, and a fourth, a fifth, or some subsequent one of the ever\nrenewed attempts will ultimately succeed. In France, the first effort\nwas defeated by Robespierre, the second by Bonaparte, the third by Louis\nXVIII. and his holy allies: another is yet to come, and all Europe, Russia\nexcepted, has caught the spirit; and all will attain representative\ngovernment, more or less perfect. This is now well understood to be a\nnecessary check on kings, whom they will probably think it more prudent\nto chain and tame, than to exterminate. To attain all this, however,\nrivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet\nthe object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation. For what\ninheritance so valuable, can man leave to his posterity? The spirit\nof the Spaniard, and his deadly and eternal hatred to a Frenchman,\ngive me much confidence that he will never submit, but finally defeat\nthis atrocious violation of the laws of God and man, under which he is\nsuffering; and the wisdom and firmness of the Cortes, afford reasonable\nhope, that that nation will settle down in a temperate representative\ngovernment, with an executive properly subordinated to that. Portugal,\nItaly, Prussia, Germany, Greece, will follow suit. You and I shall look\ndown from another world on these glorious achievements to man, which\nwill add to the joys even of heaven.\n\nI observe your toast of Mr. Jay on the 4th of July, wherein you say that\nthe omission of his signature to the Declaration of Independence was by\n_accident_. Our impressions as to this fact being different, I shall\nbe glad to have mine corrected, if wrong. Jay, you know, had been in\nconstant opposition to our laboring majority. Our estimate at the time\nwas, that he, Dickinson and Johnson of Maryland, by their ingenuity,\nperseverance and partiality to our English connection, had constantly\nkept us a year behind where we ought to have been in our preparations\nand proceedings. From about the date of the Virginia instructions of\nMay the 15th, 1776, to declare Independence, Mr. Jay absented himself\nfrom Congress, and never came there again until December, 1778. Of\ncourse, he had no part in the discussions or decision of that question.\nThe instructions to their Delegates by the Convention of New York, then\nsitting, to sign the Declaration, were presented to Congress on the 15th\nof July only, and on that day the journals show the absence of Mr. Jay,\nby a letter received from him, as they had done as early as the 29th of\nMay by another letter. And I think he had been omitted by the convention\non a new election of Delegates, when they changed their instructions. Of\nthis last fact, however, having no evidence but an ancient impression,\nI shall not affirm it. But whether so or not, no agency of _accident_\nappears in the case. This error of fact, however, whether yours or mine,\nis of little consequence to the public. But truth being as cheap as\nerror, it is as well to rectify it for our own satisfaction.\n\nI have had a fever of about three weeks, during the last and preceding\nmonth, from which I am entirely recovered except as to strength.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM SHORT.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 8, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of July 28th, from Avon, came to hand on the\n10th of August, and I have delayed answering it on the presumption of\nyour continued absence, but the approach of the season of frost in that\nregion has probably before this time turned you about to the south. I\nreadily conceive that by the time of your return to Philadelphia, you\nwill have had travelling enough for the present, and therefore acquiesce\nin your proposition to give us the next season. Your own convenience\nis a sufficient reason, and an auxiliary one is that we shall then have\nmore for you to see and approve. By that time, our rotunda, (the walls\nof which will be finished this month) will have received its roof,\nand will show itself externally to some advantage. Its columns only\nwill be wanting, as they must await their capitals from Italy. We have\njust received from thence, and are now putting up, the marble capitals\nof the buildings we have already erected, which completes our whole\nsystem, except the rotunda and its adjacent gymnasia. All are now ready\nto receive their occupants, and should the legislature, at their next\nsession, liberate our funds as is hoped, we shall ask but one year more\nto procure our professors, for most of whom we must go to Europe. In\nyour substitution of Monticello instead of your annual visit to Black\nRock, I will engage you equal health, and a more genial and pleasant\nclimate; but instead of the flitting, flirting, and gay assemblage of\nthat place, you must be contented with the plain and sober family and\nneighborly society, with the assurance that you shall hear no wrangling\nabout the next president, although the excitement on that subject will\nthen be at its acme. Numerous have been the attempts to entangle me\nin that imbroglio. But at the age of eighty, I seek quiet and abjure\ncontention. I read but a single newspaper, Ritchie's Enquirer, the best\nthat is published or ever has been published in America. Yon should\nread it also, to keep yourself _au fait_ of your own State, for we still\nclaim you as belonging to us. A city life offers you indeed more means\nof dissipating time, but more frequent, also, and more painful objects of\nvice and wretchedness. New York, for example, like London, seems to be a\nCloacina of all the depravities of human nature. Philadelphia doubtless\nhas its share. Here, on the contrary, crime is scarcely heard of, breaches\nof order rare, and our societies, if not refined, are rational, moral,\nand affectionate at least. Our only blot is becoming less offensive by\nthe great improvement in the condition and civilization of that race,\nwho can now more advantageously compare their situation with that of\nthe laborers of Europe. Still it is a hideous blot, as well from the\nheteromorph peculiarities of the race, as that, with them, physical\ncompulsion to action must be substituted for the moral necessity which\nconstrains the free laborers to work equally hard. We feel and deplore\nit morally and politically, and we look without entire despair to some\nredeeming means not yet specifically foreseen. I am happy in believing\nthat the conviction of the necessity of removing this evil gains ground\nwith time. Their emigration to the westward lightens the difficulty\nby dividing it, and renders it more practicable on the whole. And the\nneighborhood of a government of their color promises a more accessible\nasylum than that from whence they came. Ever and affectionately yours.\n\n\nTO MR. THOMAS EARLE.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 24, 1823.\n\nSIR,--Your letter of August 28th, with the pamphlet accompanying it,\nwas not received until the 18th instant.\n\nThat our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of\nthe dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no\nauthority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose\nor burthen its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by\nthe same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a\nsucceeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation\nfrom the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed\nby death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make\nits own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no\nexplanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who\nsays that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move\nsomething. They are axioms also pregnant with salutary consequences.\nThe laws of civil society indeed for the encouragement of industry,\ngive the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most\ncivilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom\nhe pleases. And it is also found more convenient to suffer the laws\nof our predecessors to stand on our implied assent, as if positively\nre-enacted, until the existing majority positively repeals them. But\nthis does not lessen the right of that majority to repeal whenever a\nchange of circumstances or of will calls for it. Habit alone confounds\nwhat is civil practice with natural right.\n\nOn the merits of the pamphlet I say nothing of course; having found it\nnecessary to decline giving opinions on books even when desired. For the\nfunctions of a reviewer, I have neither time, talent, nor inclination, and\nI trust that on reflection your indulgence will not think unreasonable\nmy unwillingness to embark in an office of so little enticement. With\nmy thanks for the pamphlet, be pleased to accept the assurance of my\ngreat respect.\n\n\nTO MR. HUGH P. TAYLOR.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 4, 1823.\n\nSIR,--You must, I think, have somewhat misunderstood what I may have said\nto you as to manuscripts in my possession relating to the antiquities,\nand particularly the Indian antiquities of our country. The only\nmanuscripts I now possess are some folio volumes, two of these are\nthe proceedings of the Virginia Company in England; the remaining four\nare of the Records of the Council of Virginia from 1622 to 1700. The\naccount of the two first volumes you will see in the preface to Stith's\nHistory of Virginia. They contain the records of the Virginia company,\ncopied from the originals, under the eye, if I recollect rightly, of\nthe Earl of Southampton, a member of the company, bought at the sale of\nhis library by Doctor Byrd, of Westover, and sold with that library to\nIsaac Zane. These volumes happened at the time of the sale, to have been\nborrowed by Colonel R. Bland, whose library I bought, and with this,\nthey were sent to me. I gave notice of it to Mr. Zane, but he never\nreclaimed them. I shall deposit them in the library of the university,\nwhere they will be most likely to be preserved with care. The other four\nvolumes, I am confident, are the original office records of the council.\nMy conjectures are that when Sr. John Randolph was about to begin the\nHistory of Virginia which he meant to write, he borrowed these volumes\nfrom the council office, to collect from them materials for his work.\nHe died before he had made any progress in that work, and they remained\nin his library, probably unobserved, during the whole life of the late\nPeyton Randolph, his son; from his executors I purchased his library in\na lump, and these volumes were sent to me as a part of it. I found the\nleaves so rotten as often to crumble into dust on being handled; I bound\nthem, therefore, together, that they might not be unnecessarily opened,\nand have thus preserved them forty-seven years. If my conjectures are\nright, they must have been out of the public office about eighty years.\nI shall deposit them also with the others in the same library of the\nuniversity, where they will be safer from injury than in a public office.\nI have promised, however, to trust them to Mr. Hening, if he will copy\nand publish them when he shall have finished his collection of the laws.\nFor this he is peculiarly qualified, as well by his diligence as by his\nfamiliarity with our ancient manuscript characters, a familiarity very\nnecessary for decyphering these volumes.\n\nI agree with you that it is the duty of every good citizen to use all\nthe opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating\nto the history of our country. That I have not been remiss in this while\nI had youth, health, and opportunity, is proved otherwise, as well as\nby the materials I furnished towards Mr. Hening's invaluable collection\nof the laws of our country; but there is a time, and that time is come\nwith me, when these duties are no more, when age and the wane of mind\nand memory, and the feebleness of the powers of life pass them over as\na legacy to younger hands. I write now slowly, laboriously, painfully.\nI am obliged, therefore, to decline all correspondence which some moral\nduty does not urgently call on me to answer. I always trust that those\nwho write them will read their answer in my age and silence, and see\nin these a manifestation that I am done with writing letters. I am\nsorry, therefore, that I am not able to give any aid to the work you\ncontemplate, other than my best wishes for its success, and to these I\nadd the assurance of my great respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 12, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I do not write with the ease which your letter of September\nthe 18th supposes. Crippled wrists and fingers make writing slow and\nlaborious. But while writing to you, I lose the sense of these things in\nthe recollection of ancient times, when youth and health made happiness\nout of everything. I forget for a while the hoary winter of age, when we\ncan think of nothing but how to keep ourselves warm, and how to get rid\nof our heavy hours until the friendly hand of death shall rid us of all\nat once. Against this _tedium vit\u00e6_, however, I am fortunately mounted\non a hobby, which, indeed, I should have better managed some thirty\nor forty years ago; but whose easy amble is still sufficient to give\nexercise and amusement to an octogenary rider. This is the establishment\nof a University, on a scale more comprehensive, and in a country more\nhealthy and central than our old William and Mary, which these obstacles\nhave long kept in a state of languor and inefficiency. But the tardiness\nwith which such works proceed, may render it doubtful whether I shall\nlive to see it go into action.\n\nPutting aside these things, however, for the present, I write this letter\nas due to a friendship coeval with our government, and now attempted to\nbe poisoned, when too late in life to be replaced by new affections. I\nhad for sometime observed in the public papers, dark hints and mysterious\ninnuendos of a correspondence of yours with a friend, to whom you had\nopened your bosom without reserve, and which was to be made public by\nthat friend or his representative. And now it is said to be actually\npublished. It has not yet reached us, but extracts have been given, and\nsuch as seemed most likely to draw a curtain of separation between you\nand myself. Were there no other motive than that of indignation against\nthe author of this outrage on private confidence, whose shaft seems to\nhave been aimed at yourself more particularly, this would make it the\nduty of every honorable mind to disappoint that aim, by opposing to\nits impression a seven-fold shield of apathy and insensibility. With\nme, however, no such armor is needed. The circumstances of the times in\nwhich we have happened to live, and the partiality of our friends at a\nparticular period, placed us in a state of apparent opposition, which some\nmight suppose to be personal also; and there might not be wanting those\nwho wished to make it so, by filling our ears with malignant falsehoods,\nby dressing up hideous phantoms of their own creation, presenting them\nto you under my name, to me under yours, and endeavoring to instil into\nour minds things concerning each other the most destitute of truth. And\nif there had been, at any time, a moment when we were off our guard, and\nin a temper to let the whispers of these people make us forget what we\nhad known of each other for so many years, and years of so much trial,\nyet all men who have attended to the workings of the human mind, who\nhave seen the false colors under which passion sometimes dresses the\nactions and motives of others, have seen also those passions subsiding\nwith time and reflection, dissipating like mists before the rising sun,\nand restoring to us the sight of all things in their true shape and\ncolors. It would be strange indeed, if, at our years, we were to go back\nan age to hunt up imaginary or forgotten facts, to disturb the repose\nof affections so sweetening to the evening of our lives. Be assured,\nmy dear Sir, that I am incapable of receiving the slightest impression\nfrom the effort now made to plant thorns on the pillow of age, worth\nand wisdom, and to sow tares between friends who have been such for\nnear half a century. Beseeching you then, not to suffer your mind to be\ndisquieted by this wicked attempt to poison its peace, and praying you\nto throw it by among the things which have never happened, I add sincere\nassurances of my unabated and constant attachment, friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO THE PRESIDENT.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 24, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The question presented by the letters you have sent me,\nis the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation\nsince that of Independence. That made us a nation, this sets our compass\nand points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time\nopening on us. And never could we embark on it under circumstances more\nauspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle\nourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe\nto intermeddle with Cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has\na set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her\nown. She should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart\nfrom that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicil of\ndespotism, our endeavor should surely be, to make our hemisphere that\nof freedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit;\nshe now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to\nher proposition, we detach her from the bands, bring her mighty weight\ninto the scale of free government, and emancipate a continent at one\nstroke, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty. Great\nBritain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one, or all on\nearth; and with her on our side we need not fear the whole world. With\nher then, we should most sedulously cherish a cordial friendship; and\nnothing would tend more to knit our affections than to be fighting once\nmore, side by side, in the same cause. Not that I would purchase even\nher amity at the price of taking part in her wars. But the war in which\nthe present proposition might engage us, should that be its consequence,\nis not her war, but ours. Its object is to introduce and establish\nthe American system, of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of\nnever permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our\nnations. It is to maintain our own principle, not to depart from it.\nAnd if, to facilitate this, we can effect a division in the body of the\nEuropean powers, and draw over to our side its most powerful member,\nsurely we should do it. But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion, that\nit will prevent instead of provoking war. With Great Britain withdrawn\nfrom their scale and shifted into that of our two continents, all Europe\ncombined would not undertake such a war. For how would they propose to\nget at either enemy without superior fleets? Nor is the occasion to be\nslighted which this proposition offers, of declaring our protest against\nthe atrocious violations of the rights of nations, by the interference\nof any one in the internal affairs of another, so flagitiously begun by\nBonaparte, and now continued by the equally lawless Alliance, calling\nitself Holy.\n\nBut we have first to ask ourselves a question. Do we wish to acquire to\nour own confederacy any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidly\nconfess, that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition\nwhich could ever be made to our system of States. The control which,\nwith Florida Point, this island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico,\nand the countries and isthmus bordering on it, as well as all those\nwhose waters flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political\nwell-being. Yet, as I am sensible that this can never be obtained, even\nwith her own consent, but by war; and its independence, which is our\nsecond interest, (and especially its independence of England,) can be\nsecured without it, I have no hesitation in abandoning my first wish\nto future chances, and accepting its independence, with peace and the\nfriendship of England, rather than its association, at the expense of\nwar and her enmity.\n\nI could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed, that we\naim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions, that we will\nnot stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between them and the\nmother country; but that we will oppose, with all our means, the forcible\ninterposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under\nany other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to any\npower by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way. I should\nthink it, therefore, advisable, that the Executive should encourage the\nBritish government to a continuance in the dispositions expressed in\nthese letters, by an assurance of his concurrence with them as far as\nhis authority goes; and that as it may lead to war, the declaration of\nwhich requires an act of Congress, the case shall be laid before them\nfor consideration at their first meeting, and under the reasonable aspect\nin which it is seen by himself.\n\nI have been so long weaned from political subjects, and have so long\nceased to take any interest in them, that I am sensible I am not qualified\nto offer opinions on them worthy of any attention. But the question now\nproposed involves consequences so lasting, and effects so decisive of\nour future destinies, as to rekindle all the interest I have heretofore\nfelt on such occasions, and to induce me to the hazard of opinions, which\nwill prove only my wish to contribute still my mite towards anything\nwhich may be useful to our country. And praying you to accept it at only\nwhat it is worth, I add the assurance of my constant and affectionate\nfriendship and respect.\n\n\nTO M. CORAY.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 31, 1823.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of July 10th is lately received. I recollect with\npleasure the short opportunity of acquaintance with you afforded me in\nParis, by the kindness of Mr. Paradise, and the fine editions of the\nclassical writers of Greece which have been announced by you from time\nto time, have never permitted me to lose the recollection. Until those\nof Aristotle's Ethics, and the Strategicos of Onesander, with which\nyou have now favored me, and for which I pray you to accept my thanks,\nI had seen only your Lives of Plutarch. These I had read, and profited\nmuch by your valuable Scholia, and the aid of a few words from a modern\nGreek dictionary would, I believe, have enabled me to read your patriotic\naddresses to your countrymen.\n\nYou have certainly begun at the right end towards preparing them for the\ngreat object they are now contending for, by improving their minds and\nqualifying them for self-government. For this they will owe you lasting\nhonors. Nothing is more likely to forward this object than a study of\nthe fine models of science left by their ancestors, to whom _we_ also\nare all indebted for the lights which originally led ourselves out of\nGothic darkness.\n\nNo people sympathize more feelingly than ours with the sufferings of\nyour countrymen, none offer more sincere and ardent prayers to heaven\nfor their success. And nothing indeed but the fundamental principle of\nour government, never to entangle us with the broils of Europe, could\nrestrain our generous youth from taking some part in this holy cause.\nPossessing ourselves the combined blessing of liberty and order, we\nwish the same to other countries, and to none more than yours, which,\nthe first of civilized nations, presented examples of what man should\nbe. Not, indeed, that the forms of government adapted to their age and\ncountry are practicable or to be imitated in our day, although prejudices\nin their favor would be natural enough to your people. The circumstances\nof the world are too much changed for that. The government of Athens, for\nexample, was that of the people of one city making laws for the whole\ncountry subjected to them. That of Laced\u00e6mon was the rule of military\nmonks over the laboring class of the people, reduced to abject slavery.\nThese are not the doctrines of the present age. The equal rights of\nman, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be\nthe only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal\nadvantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these\nrights can be secured, to-wit: government by the people, acting not in\nperson, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say,\nby every man of ripe years and sane mind, who either contributes by his\npurse or person to the support of his country. The small and imperfect\nmixture of representative government in England, impeded as it is by\nother branches, aristocratical and hereditary, shows yet the power of\nthe representative principle towards improving the condition of man.\nWith us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people\nthemselves, except the Judiciary, of whose science and qualifications\nthey are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in\na jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because\nto that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little\nas possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges.\nAnd true it is that the people, especially when moderately instructed,\nare the only safe, because the only honest, depositories of the public\nrights, and should therefore be introduced into the administration\nof them in every function to which they are sufficient; they will err\nsometimes and accidentally, but never designedly, and with a systematic\nand persevering purpose of overthrowing the free principles of the\ngovernment. Hereditary bodies, on the contrary, always existing, always\non the watch for their own aggrandizement, profit of every opportunity\nof advancing the privileges of their order, and encroaching on the rights\nof the people.\n\nThe public papers tell us that your nation has established a government\nof some kind without informing us what it is. This is certainly necessary\nfor the direction of the war, but I presume it is intended to be temporary\nonly, as a permanent constitution must be the work of quiet, leisure,\nmuch inquiry, and great deliberation. The extent of our country was so\ngreat, and its former division into distinct States so established,\nthat we thought it better to confederate as to foreign affairs only.\nEvery State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better\nqualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens,\nthan a general government so distant from its remoter citizens, and so\nlittle familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts.\nBut I presume that the extent of country with you, which may liberate\nitself from the Turks, is not too large to be associated under a single\ngovernment, and that the particular constitutions of our several States,\ntherefore, and not that of our federal government, will furnish the\nbasis best adapted to your situation. There are now twenty-four of these\ndistinct States, none smaller perhaps than your Morea, several larger\nthan all Greece. Each of these has a constitution framed by itself and\nfor itself, but militating in nothing with the powers of the general\ngovernment in its appropriate department of war and foreign affairs. These\nconstitutions being in print and in every hand, I shall only make brief\nobservations on them, and on those provisions particularly which have\nnot fulfilled expectations, or which, being varied in different States,\nleave a choice to be made of that which is best. You will find much good\nin all of them, and no one which would be approved in all its parts.\nSuch indeed are the different circumstances, prejudices, and habits of\ndifferent nations, that the constitution of no one would be reconcilable\nto any other in every point. A judicious selection of the parts of each\nsuitable to any other, is all which prudence should attempt; this will\nappear from a review of some parts of our constitutions.\n\nOur executives are elected by the people for terms of one, two, three,\nor four years, under the names of governors or presidents, and are\nre\u00ebligible a second time, or after a certain term, if approved by the\npeople. May your Ethnarch be elective also? or does your position among\nthe warring powers of Europe need an office more permanent, and a leader\nmore stable? Surely you will make him single. For if experience has ever\ntaught a truth, it is that a plurality in the supreme executive will\nforever split into discordant factions, distract the nation, annihilate\nits energies, and force the nation to rally under a single head, generally\nan usurper. We have, I think, fallen on the happiest of all modes of\nconstituting the executive, that of easing and aiding our President, by\npermitting him to choose Secretaries of State, of finance, of war, and\nof the navy, with whom he may advise, either separately or all together,\nand remedy their divisions by adopting or controlling their opinions\nat his discretion; this saves the nation from the evils of a divided\nwill, and secures to it a steady march in the systematic course which\nthe president may have adopted for that of his administration.\n\nOur legislatures are composed of two houses, the senate and\nrepresentatives, elected in different modes, and for different periods,\nand in some States, with a qualified veto in the executive chief. But to\navoid all temptation to superior pretensions of the one over the other\nhouse, and the possibility of either erecting itself into a privileged\norder, might it not be better to choose at the same time and in the same\nmode, a body sufficiently numerous to be divided by lot into two separate\nhouses, acting as independently as the two houses in England, or in our\ngovernments, and to shuffle their names together and re-distribute them\nby lot, once a week for a fortnight? This would equally give the benefit\nof time and separate deliberation, guard against an absolute passage by\nacclamation, derange cabals, intrigues, and the count of noses, disarm\nthe ascendency which a popular demagogue might at anytime obtain over\neither house, and render impossible all disputes between the two houses,\nwhich often form such obstacles to business.\n\nOur different States have differently modified their several judiciaries\nas to the tenure of office. Some appoint their judges for a given term\nof time; some continue them _during good behavior_, and that to be\ndetermined on by the concurring vote of _two-thirds_ of each legislative\nhouse. In England they are removable by a _majority_ only of each house.\nThe last is a practicable remedy; the second is not. The combination of\nthe friends and associates of the accused, the action of personal and\nparty passions, and the sympathies of the human heart, will forever find\nmeans of influencing one-third of either the one or the other house, will\nthus secure their impunity, and establish them in fact for life. The\nfirst remedy is the best, that of appointing for a term of years only,\nwith a capacity of re-appointment if their conduct has been approved.\nAt the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were\nsupposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.\nExperience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the\nmost dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their\nremoval gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their\ndecisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and\nunheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless,\nbecome law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations\nof the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any\none has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily\nemployed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be\ntrusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.\n\nThe constitutions of some of our States have made it a duty of their\ngovernment to provide with due care for the public education. This we\ndivide into three grades. 1. Primary schools, in which are taught reading,\nwriting, and common arithmetic, to every infant of the State, male and\nfemale. 2. Intermediate schools, in which an education is given proper\nfor artificers and the middle vocations of life; in grammar, for example,\ngeneral history, logarithms, arithmetic, plain trigonometry, mensuration,\nthe use of the globes, navigation, the mechanical principles, the elements\nof natural philosophy, and, as a preparation for the University, the\nGreek and Latin languages. 3. An University, in which these and all other\nuseful sciences shall be taught in their highest degree; the expenses\nof these institutions are defrayed partly by the public, and partly by\nthe individuals profiting of them.\n\nBut, whatever be the constitution, great care must be taken to provide\na mode of amendment, when experience or change of circumstances shall\nhave manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the\nnation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole\npeople, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose,\nand assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying\nthe imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an\norganization of the first impression. A greater facility of amendment is\ncertainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to\nthe times and changes through which we are ever passing. In England the\nconstitution may be altered by a single act of the legislature, which\namounts to the having no constitution at all. In some of our States,\nan act passed by two different legislatures, chosen by the people, at\ndifferent and successive elections, is sufficient to make a change in\nthe constitution. As this mode may be rendered more or less easy, by\nrequiring the approbation of fewer or more successive legislatures,\naccording to the degree of difficulty thought sufficient, and yet safe,\nit is evidently the best principle which can be adopted for constitutional\namendments.\n\nI have stated that the constitutions of our several States vary more or\nless in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all\nagree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of\nthe life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen.\n\n1. Freedom of religion, restricted only from _acts_ of trespass on that\nof others.\n\n2. Freedom of person, securing every one from imprisonment, or other\nbodily restraint, but by the laws of the land. This is effected by the\nwell-known law of _habeas corpus_.\n\n3. Trial by jury, the best of all safe-guards for the person, the\nproperty, and the fame of every individual.\n\n4. The exclusive right of legislation and taxation in the representatives\nof the people.\n\n5. Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries.\nThis formidable censor of the public functionaries, by arraigning them\nat the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peaceably, which must\notherwise be done by revolution. It is also the best instrument for\nenlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral,\nand social being.\n\nI have thus, dear Sir, according to your request, given you some\nthoughts on the subject of national government. They are the result\nof the observations and reflections of an octogenary, who has passed\nfifty years of trial and trouble in the various grades of his country's\nservice. They are yet but outlines which you will better fill up, and\naccommodate to the habits and circumstances of your countrymen. Should\nthey furnish a single idea which may be useful to them, I shall fancy\nit a tribute rendered to the manes of your Homer, your Demosthenes, and\nthe splendid constellation of sages and heroes, whose blood is still\nflowing in your veins, and whose merits are still resting, as a heavy\ndebt, on the shoulders of the living, and the future races of men. While\nwe offer to heaven the warmest supplications for the restoration of your\ncountrymen to the freedom and science of their ancestors, permit me to\nassure yourself of the cordial esteem and high respect which I bear and\ncherish towards yourself personally.\n\n\nTO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 4, 1823.\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,--Two dislocated wrists and crippled fingers have rendered\nwriting so slow and laborious, as to oblige me to withdraw from nearly\nall correspondence; not however, from yours, while I can make a stroke\nwith a pen. We have gone through too many trying scenes together, to\nforget the sympathies and affections they nourished.\n\nYour trials have indeed been long and severe. When they will end, is yet\nunknown, but where they will end, cannot be doubted. Alliances, Holy or\nHellish, may be formed, and retard the epoch of deliverance, may swell\nthe rivers of blood which are yet to flow, but their own will close the\nscene, and leave to mankind the right of self-government. I trust that\nSpain will prove, that a nation cannot be conquered which determines\nnot to be so, and that her success will be the turning of the tide of\nliberty, no more to be arrested by human efforts. Whether the state of\nsociety in Europe can bear a republican government, I doubted, you know,\nwhen with you, and I do now. A hereditary chief, strictly limited, the\nright of war vested in the legislative body, a rigid economy of the public\ncontributions, and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses, will\ngo far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive. But the\nonly security of all, is in a free press. The force of public opinion\ncannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation\nit produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters\npure.\n\nWe are all, for example, in agitation even in our peaceful country.\nFor in peace as well as in war, the mind must be kept in motion. Who is\nto be the next President, is the topic here of every conversation. My\nopinion on that subject is what I expressed to you in my last letter. The\nquestion will be ultimately reduced to the northernmost and southernmost\ncandidate. The former will get every federal vote in the Union, and many\nrepublicans; the latter, all of those denominated _of the old school_;\nfor you are not to believe that these two parties are amalgamated, that\nthe lion and the lamb are lying down together. The Hartford Convention,\nthe victory of Orleans, the peace of Ghent, prostrated the name of\nfederalism. Its votaries abandoned it through shame and mortification;\nand now call themselves republicans. But the name alone is changed, the\nprinciples are the same. For in truth, the parties of Whig and Tory, are\nthose of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these\nnames, or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cot\u00e9 Droite and Cot\u00e9\nGauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles, and Liberals. The sickly, weakly,\ntimid man, fears the people, and is a tory by nature. The healthy, strong\nand bold, cherishes them, and is formed a whig by nature. On the eclipse\nof federalism with us, although not its extinction, its leaders got up\nthe Missouri question, under the false front of lessening the measure of\nslavery, but with the real view of producing a geographical division of\nparties, which might insure them the next President. The people of the\nnorth went blindfold into the snare, followed their leaders for awhile\nwith a zeal truly moral and laudable, until they became sensible that\nthey were injuring instead of aiding the real interests of the slaves,\nthat they had been used merely as tools for electioneering purposes;\nand that trick of hypocrisy then fell as quickly as it had been got up.\nTo that is now succeeding a distinction, which, like that of republican\nand federal, or whig and tory, being equally intermixed through every\nState, threatens none of those geographical schisms which go immediately\nto a separation. The line of division now, is the preservation of State\nrights as reserved in the constitution, or by strained constructions of\nthat instrument, to merge all into a consolidated government. The tories\nare for strengthening the executive and general Government; the whigs\ncherish the representative branch, and the rights reserved by the States,\nas the bulwark against consolidation, which must immediately generate\nmonarchy. And although this division excites, as yet, no warmth, yet\nit exists, is well understood, and will be a principle of voting at the\nensuing election, with the reflecting men of both parties.\n\nI thank you much for the two books you were so kind as to send me by Mr.\nGallatin. Miss Wright had before favored me with the first edition of\nher American work; but her \"Few days in Athens,\" was entirely new, and\nhas been a treat to me of the highest order. The matter and manner of\nthe dialogue is strictly ancient; and the principles of the sects are\nbeautifully and candidly explained and contrasted; and the scenery and\nportraiture of the interlocutors are of higher finish than anything in\nthat line left us by the ancients; and like Ossian, if not ancient, it\nis equal to the best morsels of antiquity. I augur, from this instance,\nthat Herculaneum is likely to furnish better specimens of modern than\nof ancient genius; and may we not hope more from the same pen?\n\nAfter much sickness, and the accident of a broken and disabled arm, I\nam again in tolerable health, but extremely debilitated, so as to be\nscarcely able to walk into my garden. The hebetude of age, too, and\nextinguishment of interest in the things around me, are weaning me from\nthem, and dispose me with cheerfulness to resign them to the existing\ngeneration, satisfied that the daily advance of science will enable them\nto administer the commonwealth with increased wisdom. You have still\nmany valuable years to give to your country, and with my prayers that\nthey may be years of health and happiness, and especially that they may\nsee the establishment of the principles of government which you have\ncherished through life, accept the assurance of my affectionate and\nconstant friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO MR. PATRICK K. RODGERS.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 29, 1824.\n\nSIR,--I have duly received your favor of the 14th, with a copy of your\nmathematical principles of natural philosophy, which I have looked\ninto with all the attention which the rust of age and long continued\navocations of a very different character permit me to exercise. I think\nthem entirely worthy of approbation, both as to matter and method, and\nfor their brevity as a text book; and I remark particularly the clearness\nand precision with which the propositions are enounced, and, in the\ndemonstrations, the easy form in which ideas are presented to the mind,\nso as to be almost intuitive and self-evident. Of Cavallo's book, which\nyou say you are enjoined to teach, I have no knowledge, having never\nseen it; but its character is, I think, that of mere mediocrity; and,\nfrom my personal acquaintance with the man, I should expect no more. He\nwas heavy, capable enough of understanding what he read, and with memory\nto retain it, but without the talent of digestion or improvement. But,\nindeed, the English generally have been very stationary in latter times,\nand the French, on the contrary, so active and successful, particularly\nin preparing elementary books, in the mathematical and natural sciences,\nthat those who wish for instruction, without caring from what nation they\nget it, resort universally to the latter language. Besides the earlier\nand invaluable works of Euler and Bezont, we have latterly that of\nLacroix in mathematics, of Legendre in geometry, Lavoisier in chemistry,\nthe elementary works of Ha\u00fcy in physics, Biot in experimental physics\nand physical astronomy, Dumeril in natural history, to say nothing of\nmany detached essays of Monge and others, and the transcendent labors\nof Laplace, and I am informed, by a highly instructed person recently\nfrom Cambridge, that the mathematicians of that institution, sensible\nof being in the rear of those of the continent, and ascribing the cause\nmuch to their too long-continued preference of the geometrical over\nthe analytical methods, which the French have so much cultivated and\nimproved, have now adopted the latter; and that they have also given\nup the fluxionary, for the differential calculus. To confine a school,\ntherefore, to the obsolete work of Cavallo, is to shut out all advances\nin the physical sciences which have been so great in latter times. I\nam glad, however, to learn from your work, and to expect from those it\npromised in succession, which will doubtless be of equal grade, that\nso good a course of instruction is pursued in William and Mary. It is\nvery long since I have had any information of the state of education\nin that seminary, to which, as my _alma mater_, my attachment has been\never sincere, although not exclusive. When that college was located at\nthe middle plantation in 1693, Charles city was a frontier county, and\nthere were no inhabitants above the falls of the rivers, sixty miles\nonly higher up. It was, therefore, a position, nearly central to the\npopulation, as it then was; but when the frontier became extended to\nthe Sandy river, three hundred miles west of Williamsburg, the public\nconvenience called, first for a removal of the seat of government, and\nlatterly, not for a removal of the college, but, for the establishment of\na new one, in a more central and healthy situation; not disturbing the old\none in its possessions or functions, but leaving them unimpaired for the\nbenefit of those to whom it is convenient. And indeed, I do not foresee\nthat the number of its students is likely to be much affected; because\nI presume that, at present, its distance and autumnal climate prevent\nits receiving many students from above the tide-waters, and especially\nfrom above the mountains. This is, therefore, one of the cases where\nthe lawyers say there is _damnum absque injuri\u00e2_; and they instance,\nas in point, the settlement of a new schoolmaster in the neighborhood\nof an old one. At any rate it is one of those cases wherein the public\ninterest rightfully prevails, and the justice of which will be yielded\nto by none, I am sure, with more dutiful and candid acquiescence than\nthe enlightened friends of our ancient and venerable institution. The\nonly rivalship, I hope, between the old and the new, will be in doing\nthe most good possible in their respective sections of country.\n\nAs the diagrams of your book have not been engraved, I return you the\nMS. of them, which must be of value to yourself. They furnish favorable\nspecimens of the graphical talent of your former pupil. Permit me to\nadd, that I shall always be ready and happy to receive with particular\nwelcome the visit of which you flatter me with the hope, and to avail\nmyself of the occasion of assuring you personally of my great respect\nand esteem.\n\n\nTO JOSEPH C. CABELL.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 3, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am favored with your two letters of January the 26th and\n29th, and I am glad that yourself and the friends of the University are\nso well satisfied, that the provisos amendatory of the University Act are\nmere nullities. I had not been able to put out of my head the Algebraical\nequation, which was among the first of my college lessons, that a-a=0.\nYet I cheerfully arrange myself to your opinions. I did not suppose, nor\ndo I now suppose it possible, that both houses of the legislature should\never consent, for an additional fifteen thousand dollars of revenue,\nto set all the Professors and students of the University adrift; and if\nforeigners will have the same confidence which we have in our legislature,\nno harm will have been done by the provisos.\n\nYou recollect that we had agreed that the Visitors who are of the\nlegislature should fix on a certain day of meeting, after the rising of\nthe Assembly, to put into immediate motion the measures which this act\nwas expected to call for. You will of course remind the Governor that\na re-appointment of Visitors is to be made on the day following Sunday,\nthe 29th of this month; and as he is to appoint the day of their first\nmeeting, it would be well to recommend to him that which our brethren\nthere shall fix on. It may be designated by the Governor as the third,\nfourth, &c., day after the rising of the legislature, which will give\nit certainty enough.\n\nYou ask what sum would be desirable for the purchase of books and\napparatus? Certainly the largest you can obtain. Forty or fifty thousand\ndollars would enable us to purchase the most essential books of texts\nand reference for the schools, and such an apparatus for mathematics,\nastronomy and chemistry, as may enable us to set out with tolerable\ncompetence, if we can, through the banks and otherwise, anticipate the\nwhole sum at once.\n\nI remark what you say on the subject of committing ourselves to any one\nfor the law appointment. Your caution is perfectly just. I hope, and am\ncertain, that this will be the standing law of discretion and duty with\nevery member of our board, in this and all cases. You know we have all,\nfrom the beginning, considered the high qualifications of our professors,\nas the only means by which we could give to our institution splendor\nand pre-eminence over all its sister seminaries. The only question,\ntherefore, we can ever ask ourselves, as to any candidate, will be, is\nhe the most highly qualified? The college of Philadelphia has lost its\ncharacter of primacy by indulging motives of favoritism and nepotism, and\nby conferring the appointments as if the professorships were entrusted\nto them as provisions for their friends. And even that of Edinburgh,\nyou know, is also much lowered from the same cause. We are next to\nobserve, that a man is not qualified for a professor, knowing nothing\nbut merely his own profession. He should be otherwise well educated as\nto the sciences generally; able to converse understandingly with the\nscientific men with whom he is associated, and to assist in the councils\nof the faculty on any subject of science on which they may have occasion\nto deliberate. Without this, he will incur their contempt, and bring\ndisreputation on the institution. With respect to the professorship you\nmention, I scarcely know any of our judges personally; but I will name,\nfor example, the late Judge Roane, who, I believe, was generally admitted\nto be among the ablest of them. His knowledge was confined to the common\nlaw chiefly, which does not constitute one-half of the qualification\nof a really learned lawyer, much less that of a professor of law for\nan University. And as to any other branches of science, he must have\nstood mute in the presence of his literary associates, or of any learned\nstrangers or others visiting the University. Would this constitute the\nsplendid stand we propose to take?\n\nIn the course of the trusts I have exercised through life with powers of\nappointment, I can say with truth, and with unspeakable comfort, that I\nnever did appoint a relation to office, and that merely because I never\nsaw the case in which some one did not offer, or occur, better qualified;\nand I have the most unlimited confidence, that in the appointment of\nProfessors to our nursling institution, every individual of my associates\nwill look with a single eye to the sublimation of its character, and\nadopt, as our sacred motto, \"_detur digniori_.\" In this way it will\nhonor us, and bless our country.\n\nI perceive that I have permitted my reflections to run into generalities\nbeyond the scope of the particular intimation in your letter. I will\nlet them go, however, as a general confession of faith, not belonging\nmerely to the present case.\n\nName me affectionately to our brethren with you, and be assured yourself\nof my constant friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO JARED SPARKS.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 4, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I duly received your favor of the 13th, and with it, the\nlast number of the North American Review. This has anticipated the\none I should receive in course, but have not yet received, under my\nsubscription to the new series. The article on the African colonization\nof the people of color, to which you invite my attention, I have read\nwith great consideration. It is, indeed, a fine one, and will do much\ngood. I learn from it more, too, than I had before known, of the degree\nof success and promise of that colony.\n\nIn the disposition of these unfortunate people, there are two rational\nobjects to be distinctly kept in view. First. The establishment of a\ncolony on the coast of Africa, which may introduce among the aborigines\nthe arts of cultivated life, and the blessings of civilization and\nscience. By doing this, we may make to them some retribution for the\nlong course of injuries we have been committing on their population. And\nconsidering that these blessings will descend to the _\"nati natorum,\net qui nascentur ab illis,\"_ we shall in the long run have rendered\nthem perhaps more good than evil. To fulfil this object, the colony of\nSierra Leone promises well, and that of Mesurado adds to our prospect of\nsuccess. Under this view, the colonization society is to be considered\nas a missionary society, having in view, however, objects more humane,\nmore justifiable, and less aggressive on the peace of other nations,\nthan the others of that appellation.\n\nThe second object, and the most interesting to us, as coming home to\nour physical and moral characters, to our happiness and safety, is to\nprovide an asylum to which we can, by degrees, send the whole of that\npopulation from among us, and establish them under our patronage and\nprotection, as a separate, free and independent people, in some country\nand climate friendly to human life and happiness. That any place on\nthe coast of Africa should answer the latter purpose, I have ever\ndeemed entirely impossible. And without repeating the other arguments\nwhich have been urged by others, I will appeal to figures only, which\nadmit no controversy. I shall speak in round numbers, not absolutely\naccurate, yet not so wide from truth as to vary the result materially.\nThere are in the United States a million and a half of people of color\nin slavery. To send off the whole of these at once, nobody conceives to\nbe practicable for us, or expedient for them. Let us take twenty-five\nyears for its accomplishment, within which time they will be doubled.\nTheir estimated value as property, in the first place, (for actual\nproperty has been lawfully vested in that form, and who can lawfully\ntake it from the possessors?) at an average of two hundred dollars\neach, young and old, would amount to six hundred millions of dollars,\nwhich must be paid or lost by somebody. To this, add the cost of their\ntransportation by land and sea to Mesurado, a year's provision of food\nand clothing, implements of husbandry and of their trades, which will\namount to three hundred millions more, making thirty-six millions of\ndollars a year for twenty-five years, with insurance of peace all that\ntime, and it is impossible to look at the question a second time. I am\naware that at the end of about sixteen years, a gradual detraction from\nthis sum will commence, from the gradual diminution of breeders, and go\non during the remaining nine years. Calculate this deduction, and it\nis still impossible to look at the enterprise a second time. I do not\nsay this to induce an inference that the getting rid of them is forever\nimpossible. For that is neither my opinion nor my hope. But only that\nit cannot be done in this way. There is, I think, a way in which it can\nbe done; that is, by emancipating the after-born, leaving them, on due\ncompensation, with their mothers, until their services are worth their\nmaintenance, and then putting them to industrious occupations, until a\nproper age for deportation. This was the result of my reflections on\nthe subject five and forty years ago, and I have never yet been able\nto conceive any other practicable plan. It was sketched in the Notes on\nVirginia, under the fourteenth query. The estimated value of the new-born\ninfant is so low, (say twelve dollars and fifty cents,) that it would\nprobably be yielded by the owner gratis, and would thus reduce the six\nhundred millions of dollars, the first head of expense, to thirty-seven\nmillions and a half; leaving only the expenses of nourishment while\nwith the mother, and of transportation. And from what fund are these\nexpenses to be furnished? Why not from that of the lands which have\nbeen ceded by the very States now needing this relief? And ceded on no\nconsideration, for the most part, but that of the general good of the\nwhole. These cessions already constitute one fourth of the States of\nthe Union. It may be said that these lands have been sold; are now the\nproperty of the citizens composing those States; and the money long ago\nreceived and expended. But an equivalent of lands in the territories\nsince acquired, may be appropriated to that object, or so much, at least,\nas may be sufficient; and the object, although more important to the\nslave States, is highly so to the others also, if they were serious in\ntheir arguments on the Missouri question. The slave States, too, if more\ninterested, would also contribute more by their gratuitous liberation,\nthus taking on themselves alone the first and heaviest item of expense.\n\nIn the plan sketched in the Notes on Virginia, no particular place\nof asylum was specified; because it was thought possible, that in the\nrevolutionary state of America, then commenced, events might open to\nus some one within practicable distance. This has now happened. St.\nDomingo has become independent, and with a population of that color\nonly; and if the public papers are to be credited, their Chief offers\nto pay their passage, to receive them as free citizens, and to provide\nthem employment. This leaves, then, for the general confederacy, no\nexpense but of nurture with the mother a few years, and would call, of\ncourse, for a very moderate appropriation of the vacant lands. Suppose\nthe whole annual increase to be of sixty thousand effective births,\nfifty vessels, of four hundred tons burthen each, constantly employed in\nthat short run, would carry off the increase of every year, and the old\nstock would die off in the ordinary course of nature, lessening from the\ncommencement until its final disappearance. In this way no violation of\nprivate right is proposed Voluntary surrenders would probably come in\nas fast as the means to be provided for their care would be competent\nto it. Looking at my own State only, and I presume not to speak for the\nothers, I verily believe that this surrender of property would not amount\nto more, annually, than half our present direct taxes, to be continued\nfully about twenty or twenty-five years, and then gradually diminishing\nfor as many more until their final extinction; and even this half tax\nwould not be paid in cash, but by the delivery of an object which they\nhave never yet known or counted as part of their property; and those\nnot possessing the object will be called on for nothing. I do not go\ninto all the details of the burthens and benefits of this operation. And\nwho could estimate its blessed effects? I leave this to those who will\nlive to see their accomplishment, and to enjoy a beatitude forbidden\nto my age. But I leave it with this admonition, to rise and be doing. A\nmillion and a half are within their control; but six millions, (which a\nmajority of those now living will see them attain,) and one million of\nthese fighting men, will say, \"we will not go.\"\n\nI am aware that this subject involves some constitutional scruples.\nBut a liberal construction, justified by the object, may go far, and an\namendment of the constitution, the whole length necessary. The separation\nof infants from their mothers, too, would produce some scruples of\nhumanity. But this would be straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.\n\nI am much pleased to see that you have taken up the subject of the duty\non imported books. I hope a crusade will be kept up against it, until\nthose in power shall become sensible of this stain on our legislation,\nand shall wipe it from their code, and from the remembrance of man, if\npossible.\n\nI salute you with assurances of high respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO ROBERT J. GARNETT.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 14, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have to thank you for the copy of Colonel Taylor's New\nViews of the Constitution, and shall read them with the satisfaction\nand edification which I have ever derived from whatever he has written.\nBut I fear it is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Those who\nformerly usurped the _name_ of federalists, which, _in fact_, they never\nwere, have now openly abandoned it, and are as openly marching by the\nroad of construction, in a direct line to that consolidation which was\nalways their real object. They, almost to a man, are in possession of\none branch of the government, and appear to be very strong in yours.\nThe three great questions of amendment now before you, will give the\nmeasure of their strength. I mean, 1st, the limitation of the term\nof the presidential service; 2d, the placing the choice of president\neffectually in the hands of the people; 3d, the giving to Congress the\npower of internal improvement, on condition that each State's federal\nproportion of the monies so expended, shall be employed within the\nState. The friends of consolidation would rather take these powers by\nconstruction than accept them by direct investiture from the States. Yet,\nas to internal improvement particularly, there is probably not a State\nin the Union which would not grant the power on the condition proposed,\nor which would grant it without that.\n\nThe best general key for the solution of questions of power between\nour governments, is the fact that \"every foreign and federal power is\ngiven to the federal government, and to the States every power purely\ndomestic.\" I recollect but one instance of control vested in the federal,\nover the State authorities in a matter purely domestic, which is that\nof metallic tenders. The federal is, in truth, our foreign government,\nwhich department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate\nStates.\n\nThe real friends of the constitution in its federal form, if they wish it\nto be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace\nwith the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this,\nthe European governments have resisted reformation, until the people,\nseeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only\nweapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued\nanarchy. Here it will be by large fragments breaking off, and refusing\nre-union but on condition of amendment, or perhaps permanently. If I can\nsee these three great amendments prevail, I shall consider it as a renewed\nextension of the term of our lease, shall live in more confidence, and\ndie in more hope. And I do trust that the republican mass, which Colonel\nTaylor justly says is the real federal one, is still strong enough to\ncarry these truly federo-republican amendments. With my prayers for the\nissue, accept my friendly and respectful salutations.\n\n\nTO MR. ISAAC ENGELBRECHT.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 25, 1824.\n\nSIR,--The kindness of the motive which led to the request of your letter\nof the 14th instant, and which would give some value to an article from\nme, renders compliance a duty of gratitude; knowing nothing more moral,\nmore sublime, more worthy of your preservation than David's description\nof the good man, in his 15th Psalm, I will here transcribe it from Brady\n& Tate's version:\n\n Lord, who's the happy man that may to thy blest courts repair,\n Not stranger-like, to visit them, but to inhabit there?\n 'Tis he whose every thought and deed by rules of virtue moves,\n Whose generous tongue disdains to speak the thing his heart disproves.\n Who never did a slander forge, his neighbor's fame to wound,\n Nor hearken to a false report by malice whispered round.\n Who, vice, in all its pomp and power, can treat with just neglect;\n And piety, though clothed in rags, religiously respect.\n Who, to his plighted vows and trust, has ever firmly stood,\n And though he promise to his loss he makes his promise good.\n Whose soul in usury disdains his treasure to employ,\n Whom no rewards can ever bribe the guiltless to destroy.\n The man who by this steady course has happiness ensured,\n When earth's foundation shakes, shall stand by providence secured.\n\nAccept this as a testimony of my respect for your request, an\nacknowledgment of a due sense of the favor of your opinion, and an\nassurance of my good will and best wishes.\n\n\nTO MR. WOODWARD.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 24, 1824.\n\nI have to thank you, dear Sir, for the copy I have received of your System\nof Universal Science, for which, I presume, I am indebted to yourself.\nIt will be a monument of the learning of the author and of the analyzing\npowers of his mind. Whether it may be adopted in general use is yet to be\nseen. These analytical views indeed must always be ramified according to\ntheir object. Yours is on the great scale of a methodical encyclopedia of\nall human sciences, taking for the basis of their distribution, matter,\nmind, and the union of both. Lord Bacon founded his first great division\non the faculties of the mind which have cognizance of these sciences.\nIt does not seem to have been observed by any one that the origination\nof this division was not with him. It had been proposed by Charron more\nthan twenty years before, in his book de la Sagesse, B. 1, c. 14, and\nan imperfect ascription of the sciences to these respective faculties\nwas there attempted. This excellent moral work was published in 1600.\nLord Bacon is said not to have entered on his great work until his\nretirement from public office in 1621. Where sciences are to be arranged\nin accommodation to the schools of an university, they will be grouped\nto coincide with the kindred qualifications of Professors in ordinary.\nFor a library, which was my object, their divisions and subdivisions will\nbe made such as to throw convenient masses of books under each separate\nhead. Thus, in the library of a physician, the books of that science,\nof which he has many, will be subdivided under many heads; and these\nof law, of which he has few, will be placed under a single one. The\nlawyer, again, will distribute his law books under many subdivisions,\nhis medical under a single one. Your idea of making the subject matter\nof the sciences the basis of their distribution, is certainly more\nreasonable than that of the faculties to which they are addressed. The\nmaterialists will perhaps criticize a basis, one-half of which they will\nsay is a non-existence; adhering to the axiom of Aristotle, \"_nihil est\nin intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu_,\" and affirming that we\ncan have no evidence of any existence which impresses no sense. Of this\nopinion were most of the ancient philosophers, and several of the early\nand orthodox fathers of the christian church. Indeed, Jesus himself, the\nfounder of our religion, was unquestionably a materialist as to man. In\nall his doctrines of the resurrection, he teaches expressly that the body\nis to rise in substance. In the Apostles' Creed, we all declare that we\nbelieve in the \"resurrection of the body.\" Jesus said that God is spirit\n[\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1] without defining it. Tertullian supplies the definition, \"_quis\nnegabit Deum esse corpus, etsi Deus Spiritus? spiritus etiam corporis sui\ngeneris in su\u00e2 effigie_.\" And Origen, \"\u03b1\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd _accipi, docet, pro eo\nquod non est simile huic nostro crassiori et visibli corpori, sed quod\nest naturaliter subtile et velut aura tenue_.\" The modern philosophers\nmostly consider thought as a function of our material organization; and\nLocke particularly among them, charges with blasphemy those who deny that\nOmnipotence could give the faculty of thinking to certain combinations\nof matter.\n\nWere I to re-compose my tabular view of the sciences, I should certainly\ntranspose a particular branch. The naturalists, you know, distribute\nthe history of nature into three kingdoms or departments: zoology,\nbotany, mineralogy. Ideology or mind, however, occupies so much space\nin the field of science, that we might perhaps erect it into a fourth\nkingdom or department. But, inasmuch as it makes a part of the animal\nconstruction only, it would be more proper to subdivide zoology into\nphysical and moral. The latter including ideology, ethics, and mental\nscience generally, in my catalogue, considering ethics, as well as\nreligion, as supplements to law in the government of man, I had placed\nthem in that sequence. But certainly the faculty of thought belongs to\nanimal history, is an important portion of it and should there find its\nplace. But these are speculations in which I do not now permit myself\nto labor. My mind unwillingly engages in severe investigations. Its\nenergies, indeed, are no longer equal to them. Being to thank you for\nyour hook, its subject has run away with me into a labyrinth of ideas\nno longer familiar, and writing also has become a slow and irksome\noperation with me. I have been obliged to avail myself of the pen of a\ngranddaughter for this communication. I will here, therefore, close my\ntask of thinking, hers of writing, and yours of reading, with assurances\nof my constant and high respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO MR. EDWARD EVERETT.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 27, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have to thank you for your Greek reader, which, for the\nuse of schools, is evidently preferable to the Collectanea Gr\u00e6ca. These\nhave not arranged their selections so well in gradation from the easier\nto the more difficult styles.\n\nOn the subject of the Greek ablative, I dare say that your historical\nexplanation is the true one. In the early stages of languages, the\ndistinctions of cases may well be supposed so few as to be readily\neffected by changes of termination. The Greeks, in this way, seem to have\nformed five, the Latins six, and to have supplied their deficiencies\nas they occurred in the progress of development, by prepositive words.\nIn later times, the Italians, Spaniards, and French, have depended on\nprepositions altogether, without any inflection of the primitive word to\ndenote the change of case. What is singular as to the English is, that\nin its early form of Anglo-Saxon, having distinguished several cases by\nchanges of termination, at later periods it has dropped these, retains but\nthat of the genitive, and supplies all the others by prepositions. These\nsubjects, with me, are neither favorites nor familiar; and your letter\nhas occasioned me to look more into the particular one in question than I\nhad ever done before. Turning, for satisfaction, to the work of Tracy, the\nmost profound of our ideological writers, and to the volume particularly\nwhich treats of grammar, I find what I suppose to be the correct doctrine\nof the case. Omitting unnecessary words to abridge writing, I copy what\nhe says: \"Il y a des langues qui par certains changemens de desinence,\nappell\u00e9s _cas_, indiquent quelquesuns des rapports des noms avec d'autres\nnoms; mais beaucoup de langues n'ont point de cas; et celles qui en ont,\nn'en ont qu'un petit nombre, tandis que les divers rapports qu'une id\u00e9e\npeut avoir avec une autre sont extr\u00eamement multipli\u00e9s: ainsi, les cas\nne peuvent exprimer qu'en general, les principaux de ces rapports. Aussi\ndans toutes les langues, meme dans celles qui out des _cas_, on a senti\nle besoin de mots distincts, separ\u00e9s des autres, et expressement destin\u00e9s\n\u00e0 cet usage; ils ce qu'on appelle des prepositions.\" 2 Tracy Elemens\nd'Ideologie, c. 3, \u00a7 5, p. 114, and he names the Basque and Peruvian\nlanguages, whose nouns have such various changes of termination as to\nexpress all the relations which other languages express by prepositions,\nand therefore having no prepositions. On this ground, I suppose, then,\nwe may rest the question of the Greek ablative. It leaves with me a\nsingle difficulty only, to-wit: the instances where they have given the\nablative signification to the dative termination, some of which I quoted\nin my former letter to you.\n\nI have just received a letter from Coray, at Paris, of the 28th December,\nin which he confirms the late naval success of the Greeks, but expresses\na melancholy fear for his nation, \"qui a montr\u00e9 jusqu'\u00e1 ce moment des\nprodiges de valeur, mais qui, delivr\u00e9e d'un joug de Cannibass, ne peut\nencore posseder ni les le\u00e7ons d'instruction, ni celles de l'exp\u00e9rience.\"\nI confess I have the same fears for our South American brethren; the\nqualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are\nthe result of habit and long training, and for these they will require\ntime and probably much suffering.\n\nI salute you with assurances of great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO EDWARD LIVINGSTON.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 4, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--It was with great pleasure I learned that the good people\nof New Orleans had restored you again to the councils of our country. I\ndid not doubt the aid it would bring to the remains of our old school in\nCongress, in which your early labors had been so useful. You will find,\nI suppose, on revisiting our maritime States, the names of things more\nchanged than the things themselves; that though our old opponents have\ngiven up their appellation, they have not, in assuming ours, abandoned\ntheir views, and that they are as strong nearly as they ever were. These\ncares, however, are no longer mine. I resign myself cheerfully to the\nmanagers of the ship, and the more contentedly, as I am near the end\nof my voyage. I have learned to be less confident in the conclusions of\nhuman reason, and give more credit to the honesty of contrary opinions.\nThe radical idea of the character of the constitution of our government,\nwhich I have adopted as a key in cases of doubtful construction, is,\nthat the whole field of government is divided into two departments,\ndomestic and foreign, (the States in their mutual relations being of\nthe latter;) that the former department is reserved exclusively to the\nrespective States within their own limits, and the latter assigned to\na separate set of functionaries, constituting what may be called the\nforeign branch, which, instead of a federal basis, is established as\na distinct government _quoad hoc_, acting as the domestic branch does\non the citizens directly and coercively; that these departments have\ndistinct directories, co-ordinate, and equally independent and supreme,\neach within its own sphere of action. Whenever a doubt arises to which\nof these branches a power belongs, I try it by this test. I recollect\nno case where a question simply between citizens of the same State, has\nbeen transferred to the foreign department, except that of inhibiting\ntenders but of metallic money, and _ex post facto_ legislation. The\ncauses of these singularities are well remembered.\n\nI thank you for the copy of your speech on the question of national\nimprovement, which I have read with great pleasure, and recognize in it\nthose powers of reasoning and persuasion of which I had formerly seen\nfrom you so many proofs. Yet, in candor, I must say it has not removed,\nin my mind, all the difficulties of the question. And I should really be\nalarmed at a difference of opinion with you, and suspicious of my own,\nwere it not that I have, as companions in sentiments, the Madisons, the\nMonroes, the Randolphs, the Macons, all good men and true, of primitive\nprinciples. In one sentiment of the speech I particularly concur. \"If we\nhave a doubt relative to any power, we ought not to exercise it.\" When\nwe consider the extensive and deep-seated opposition to this assumption,\nthe conviction entertained by so many, that this deduction of powers by\nelaborate construction prostrates the rights reserved to the States, the\ndifficulties with which it will rub along in the course of its exercise;\nthat changes of majorities will be changing the system backwards and\nforwards, so that no undertaking under it will be safe; that there is\nnot a State in the Union which would not give the power willingly, by\nway of amendment, with some little guard, perhaps, against abuse; I\ncannot but think it would be the wisest course to ask an express grant\nof the power. A government held together by the bands of reason only,\nrequires much compromise of opinion; that things even salutary should\nnot be crammed down the throats of dissenting brethren, especially when\nthey may be put into a form to be willingly swallowed, and that a great\ndeal of indulgence is necessary to strengthen habits of harmony and\nfraternity. In such a case, it seems to me it would be safer and wiser\nto ask an express grant of the power. This would render its exercise\nsmooth and acceptable to all, and insure to it all the facilities which\nthe States could contribute, to prevent that kind of abuse which all\nwill fear, because all know it is so much practised in public bodies, I\nmean the bartering of votes. It would reconcile every one, if limited\nby the proviso, that the federal proportion of each State should be\nexpended within the State. With this single security against partiality\nand corrupt bargaining, I suppose there is not a State, perhaps not a\nman in the Union, who would not consent to add this to the powers of the\ngeneral government. But age has weaned me from questions of this kind.\nMy delight is now in the passive occupation of reading; and it is with\ngreat reluctance I permit my mind ever to encounter subjects of difficult\ninvestigation. You have many years yet to come of vigorous activity, and\nI confidently trust they will be employed in cherishing every measure\nwhich may foster our brotherly union, and perpetuate a constitution of\ngovernment destined to be the primitive and precious model of what is\nto change the condition of man over the globe. With this confidence,\nequally strong in your powers and purposes, I pray you to accept the\nassurance of my cordial esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO JOHN HAMPDEN PLEASANTS.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 19, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I received in due time your favor of the 12th, requesting\nmy opinion on the proposition to call a convention for amending the\nconstitution of the State. That this should not be perfect cannot be\na subject of wonder, when it is considered that ours was not only the\nfirst of the American States, but the first nation in the world, at\nleast within the records of history, which peaceably by its wise men,\nformed on free deliberation, a constitution of government for itself, and\ndeposited it in writing, among their archives, always ready and open to\nthe appeal of every citizen. The other States, who successively formed\nconstitutions for themselves also, had the benefit of our outline, and\nhave made on it, doubtless, successive improvements. One in the very\noutset, and which has been adopted in every subsequent constitution, was\nto lay its foundation in the authority of the nation. To our convention\nno special authority had been delegated by the people to form a permanent\nconstitution, over which their successors in legislation should have no\npowers of alteration. They had been elected for the ordinary purposes of\nlegislation only, and at a time when the establishment of a new government\nhad not been proposed or contemplated. Although, therefore, they gave\nto this act the title of a constitution, yet it could be no more than\nan act of legislation subject, as their other acts were, to alteration\nby their successors. It has been said, indeed, that the acquiescence of\nthe people supplied the want of original power. But it is a dangerous\nlesson to say to them \"whenever your functionaries exercise unlawful\nauthority over you, if you do not go into actual resistance, it will be\ndeemed acquiescence and confirmation.\" How long had we acquiesced under\nusurpations of the British parliament? Had that confirmed them in right,\nand made our revolution a wrong? Besides, no authority has yet decided\nwhether this resistance must be instantaneous; when the right to resist\nceases, or whether it has yet ceased? Of the twenty-four States now\norganized, twenty-three have disapproved our doctrine and example, and\nhave deemed the authority of their people a necessary foundation for a\nconstitution.\n\nAnother defect which has been corrected by most of the States is, that\nthe basis of our constitution is in opposition to the principle of equal\npolitical rights, refusing to all but freeholders any participation in\nthe natural right of self-government. It is believed, for example, that a\nvery great majority of the militia, on whom the burthen of military duty\nwas imposed in the late war, were men unrepresented in the legislation\nwhich imposed this burthen on them. However nature may by mental or\nphysical disqualifications have marked infants and the weaker sex for\nthe protection, rather than the direction of government, yet among the\nmen who either pay or fight for their country, no line of right can\nbe drawn. The exclusion of a majority of our freemen from the right of\nrepresentation is merely arbitrary, and an usurpation of the minority\nover the majority; for it is believed that the non-freeholders compose\nthe majority of our free and adult male citizens.\n\nAnd even among our citizens who participate in the representative\nprivilege, the equality of political rights is entirely prostrated by our\nconstitution. Upon which principle of right or reason can any one justify\nthe giving to every citizen of Warwick as much weight in the government\nas to twenty-two equal citizens in Loudon, and similar inequalities among\nthe other counties? If these fundamental principles are of no importance\nin actual government, then no principles are important, and it is as\nwell to rely on the dispositions of an administration; good or evil, as\non the provisions of a constitution.\n\nI shall not enter into the details of smaller defects, although others\nthere doubtless are, the reformation of some of which might very much\nlessen the expenses of government, improve its organization, and add\nto the wisdom and purity of its administration in all its parts; but\nthese things I leave to others, not permitting myself to take sides\nin the political questions of the day. I willingly acquiesce in the\ninstitutions of my country, perfect or imperfect; and think it a duty\nto leave their modifications to those who are to live under them, and\nare to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present\ngeneration has the same right of self-government which the past one has\nexercised for itself. And those in the full vigor of body and mind are\nmore able to judge for themselves than those who are sinking under the\nwane of both. If the sense of our citizens on the question of a convention\ncan be fairly and fully taken, its result will, I am sure, be wise and\nsalutary; and far from arrogating the office of advice, no one will\nmore passively acquiesce in it than myself. Retiring, therefore, to the\ntranquillity called for by increasing years and debility, I wish not to\nbe understood as intermeddling in this question; and to my prayers for\nthe general good, I have only to add assurances to yourself of my great\nesteem.\n\n\nTO MR. DAVID HARDING, PRESIDENT OF THE JEFFERSON DEBATING SOCIETY OF\nHINGHAM.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 20, 1824.\n\nSIR.--I have duly received your favor of the 6th instant, informing\nme of the institution of a debating society in Hingham, composed of\nadherents to the republican principles of the revolution; and I am justly\nsensible of the honor done my name by associating it with the title of\nthe society. The object of the society is laudable, and in a republican\nnation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion, and not\nby force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance. In this\nline, antiquity has left us the finest models for imitation; and he\nwho studies and imitates them most nearly, will nearest approach the\nperfection of the art. Among these I should consider the speeches of\nLivy, Sallust, and Tacitus, as pre-eminent specimens of logic, taste,\nand that sententious brevity which, using not a word to spare, leaves\nnot a moment for inattention to the hearer. Amplification is the vice\nof modern oratory. It is an insult to an assembly of reasonable men,\ndisgusting and revolting instead of persuading. Speeches measured by\nthe hour, die with the hour. I will not, however, further indulge the\ndisposition of the age to sermonize, and especially to those surrounded by\nso much better advice. With my apologies, therefore, for hazarding even\nthese observations, and my prayers for the success of your institution,\nbe pleased to accept for the society and yourself the assurances of my\nhigh consideration.\n\n\nTO RICHARD RUSH.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 26, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have heretofore informed you that our legislature had\nundertaken the establishment of an University in Virginia; that it was\nplaced in my neighborhood, and under the direction of a board of seven\nvisitors, of whom I am one, Mr. Madison another, and others equally\nworthy of confidence. We have been four or five years engaged in erecting\nour buildings, all of which are now ready to receive their tenants, one\nexcepted, which the present season will put into a state for use. The last\nsession of our legislature had by new donations liberated the revenue of\nfifteen M. D. a year, with which they had before endowed the institution,\nand we propose to open it the beginning of the next year. We require the\nintervening time for seeking out and engaging Professors. As to these we\nhave determined to receive no one who is not of the first order of science\nin his line; and as such in every branch cannot be obtained with us, we\npropose to seek some of them at least in the countries ahead of us in\nscience, and preferably in Great Britain, the land of our own language,\nhabits and manners. But how to find out those who are of the first grade\nof science, of sober correct habits and morals, harmonizing tempers,\ntalents for communication, is the difficulty. Our first step is to send\na special agent to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh,\nto make the selection for us; and the person appointed for this office\nis the gentleman who will hand you this letter,--Mr. Francis Walker\nGilmer,--the best-educated subject we have raised since the revolution,\nhighly qualified in all the important branches of science, professing\nparticularly that of the law, which he has practised some years at our\nSupreme Court with good success and flattering prospects. His morals, his\namiable temper and discretion, will do justice to any confidence you may\nbe willing to place in him, for I commit him to you as his mentor and\nguide in the business he goes on. We do not certainly expect to obtain\nsuch known characters as were the Cullens, the Robertsons and Porsons of\nGreat Britain, men of the first eminence established there in reputation\nand office, and with emoluments not to be bettered anywhere. But we know\nthat there is another race treading on their heels, preparing to take\ntheir places, and as well and sometimes better qualified to fill them.\nThese while unsettled, surrounded by a crowd of competitors, of equal\nclaims and perhaps superior credit and interest, may prefer a comfortable\ncertainty here for an uncertain hope there, and a lingering delay even\nof that. From this description we expect we may draw professors equal\nto those of the highest name. The difficulty is to distinguish them;\nfor we are told that so overcharged are all branches of business in\nthat country, and such the difficulty of getting the means of living,\nthat it is deemed allowable in ethics for even the most honorable minds\nto give highly exaggerated recommendations and certificates to enable\na friend or proteg\u00e9 to get into a livelihood; and that the moment our\nagent should be known to be on such a mission, he would be overwhelmed\nby applications from numerous pretenders, all of whom, worthy or\nunworthy, would be supported by such recommendations and such names as\nwould confound all discrimination. On this head our trust and hope is in\nyou. Your knowledge of the state of things, your means of finding out a\ncharacter or two at each place, truly trustworthy, and into whose hands\nyou can commit our agent with entire safety, for information, caution\nand co-operation, induces me to request your patronage and aid in our\nendeavors to obtain such men, and such only as will fulfil our views.\nAn unlucky selection in the outset would forever blast our prospects.\nFrom our information of the character of the different Universities, we\nexpect we should go to Oxford for our classical professor, to Cambridge\nfor those of Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Natural History, and to\nEdinburgh for a professor of Anatomy, and the elements or outlines only of\nMedicine. We have still our eye on Mr. Blaetterman for the professorship\nof modern languages, and Mr. Gilmer is instructed to engage him, if no\nvery material objection to him may have arisen unknown to us. We can\nplace in Mr. Gilmer's hands but a moderate sum at present for merely\ntext books to begin with, and for indispensable articles of apparatus,\nMathematical, Astronomical, Physical, Chemical and Anatomical. We are in\nthe hope of a sum of $50,000, as soon as we can get a settlement passed\nthrough the public offices. My experience in dealing with the bookseller\nLackington, on your recommendation, has induced me to recommend him\nto Mr. Gilmer, and if we can engage his fidelity, we may put into his\nhands the larger supply of books when we are ready to call for it, and\nparticularly what we shall propose to seek in England.\n\nAlthough I have troubled you with many particulars, I yet leave abundance\nfor verbal explanation with Mr. Gilmer, who possesses a full knowledge\nof everything, and our full confidence in everything. He takes with him\nplans of our establishment, which we think it may be encouraging to show\nto the persons to whom he will make propositions, as well to let them see\nthe comforts provided for themselves, as to show by the extensiveness\nand expense of the scale, that it is no ephemeral thing to which they\nare invited.\n\nWith my earnest solicitations that you will give us all your aid in an\nundertaking on which we rest the hopes and happiness of our country,\naccept the assurances of my sincere friendship, attachment and respect.\n\n\nTO JOSEPH C. CABELL.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 16, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 5th, from Williamsburg, has been duly\nreceived, and presents to us a case of pregnant character, admitting\nimportant issues, and requiring serious consideration and conduct; yet\nI am more inclined to view it with hope than dismay. It involves two\nquestions. First. Shall the college of William and Mary be removed?\nSecond. To what place? As to the first, I never doubted the lawful\nauthority of the legislature over the college, as being a public\ninstitution and endowed from the public property, by public agents for\nthat function, and for public purposes. Some have doubted this authority\nwithout a relinquishment of what they call a vested right by the body\ncorporate. But as their voluntary relinquishment is a circumstance of the\ncase, it is relieved from that doubt. I certainly never wished that my\nvenerable _alma mater_ should be disturbed. I considered it as an actual\npossession of that ancient and earliest settlement of our forefathers,\nand was disposed to see it yielded as a courtesy, rather than taken as a\nright. They, however, are free to renounce a benefit, and we to receive\nit. Had we dissolved it on the principle of right, to give a direction\nto its funds more useful to the public, the professors, although their\nchartered tenure is during pleasure only, might have reasonably expected\na vale of a year or two's salary, as an intermediate support, until they\ncould find other employment for their talents. And notwithstanding that\ntheir abandonment is voluntary, this should still be given them. On this\nfirst question I think we should be absolutely silent and passive, taking\nno part in it until the old institution is loosened from its foundation\nand fairly placed on its wheels.\n\n2. On the second question, to what place shall it be moved? we may take\nthe field boldly. Richmond, it seems, claims it, but on what ground of\nadvantage to the public? When the professors, their charter and funds\nshall be translated to Richmond, will they become more enlightened there\nthan at the old place? Will they possess more science? be more capable\nof communicating it? or more competent to raise it from the dead, in\na new sect, than to keep it alive in the ancient one? Or has Richmond\nany peculiarities more favorable for the communication of the sciences\ngenerally than the place which the legislature has preferred and fixed on\nfor that purpose? This will not be pretended. But it seems they possess\nadvantages for a medical school. Let us scan them. Anatomy may be as\ncompetently taught at the University as at Richmond, the only subjects\nof discretion which either place can count on are equally acquirable\nat both. And as to medicine, whatever can be learned from lectures\nor books, may be taught at the University of Virginia as well as at\nRichmond, or even at Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, or Boston, with\nthe inestimable additional advantage of acquiring, at the same time, the\nkindred sciences by attending the other schools. But Richmond thinks it\ncan have a hospital which will furnish subjects for the clinical branch of\nmedicine. The classes of people which furnish subjects for the hospitals\nof Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, do not exist at Richmond.\nThe shipping constantly present at those places, furnish many patients.\nIs there a ship at Richmond? The class of white servants in those cities\nwhich is numerous and penniless, and whose regular resource in sickness\nis always the hospital, constitutes the great body of their patients;\nthis class does not exist at Richmond. The servants there are slaves,\nwhose masters are by law obliged to take care of them in sickness as in\nhealth, and who could not be admitted into a hospital. These resources,\nthen, being null, the free inhabitants alone remain for a hospital at\nRichmond. And I will ask how many families in Richmond would send their\nhusbands, wives, or children to a hospital, in sickness, to be attended by\nnurses hardened by habit against the feelings of pity, to lie in public\nrooms harassed by the cries and sufferings of disease under every form,\nalarmed by the groans of the dying, exposed as a corpse to be lectured\nover by a clinical professor, to be crowded and handled by his students\nto hear their case learnedly explained to them, its threatening symptoms\ndeveloped, and its probable termination foreboded? In vindication of\nRichmond, I may surely answer that there is not in the place a family\nso heartless, as, relinquishing their own tender cares of a child or\nparent, to abandon them in sickness to this last resource of poverty;\nfor it is poverty alone which peoples hospitals, and those alone who\nare on the charities of their parish would go to their hospital. Have\nthey paupers enough to fill a hospital? and sickness enough among these?\nOne reason alleged for the removal of the college to Richmond is that\nWilliamsburg is sickly, is happily little apt for the situation of a\nhospital. No Sir; Richmond is no place to furnish subjects for clinical\nlectures. I have always had Norfolk in view for this purpose. The climate\nand pontine country around Norfolk render it truly sickly in itself.\nIt is, moreover, the rendezvous not only of the shipping of commerce,\nbut of the vessels of the public navy. The United States have there\na hospital already established, and supplied with subjects from these\nlocal circumstances. I had thought and have mentioned to yourself and\nour colleagues, that when our medical school has got well under way,\nwe should propose to the federal government the association with that\nestablishment, and at our own expense, of the clinical branch of our\nmedical school, so that our students, after qualifying themselves with\nthe other branches of the science here, might complete their course of\npreparation by attending clinical lectures for six or twelve months at\nNorfolk.\n\nBut Richmond has another claim, _as being the seat of government_. The\nindisposition of Richmond towards our University has not been unfelt.\nBut would it not be wiser in them to rest satisfied with the government\nand their local academy? Can they afford, on the question of a change of\nthe seat of government, by hostilizing the middle counties, to transfer\nthem from the eastern to the western interest? To make it their interest\nto withdraw from the former that ground of claim, if used for adversary\npurposes? With things as they are, let both parties remain content and\nunited.\n\nIf, then, William and Mary is to be removed, and not to Richmond, can\nthere be two opinions how its funds are to be directed to the best\nadvantage for the public? When it was found that that seminary was\nentirely ineffectual towards the object of public education, and that one\non a better plan, and in a better situation, must be provided, what was\nso obvious as to employ for that purpose the funds of the one abandoned,\nwith what more would be necessary, to raise the new establishment?\nAnd what so obvious as to do now what might reasonably have been done\nthen, by consolidating together the institutions and their funds? The\nplan sanctioned by the legislature required for our University ten\nprofessors, but the funds appropriated will maintain but eight, and\nsome of these are consequently over-burthened with duties; the hundred\nthousand dollars of principal which you say still remains to William\nand Mary, by its interest of six thousand dollars, would give us the two\ndeficient professors, with an annual surplus for the purchase of books;\nand certainly the legislature will see no public interest, after the\nexpense incurred on the new establishment, in setting up a rival in the\ncity of Richmond; they cannot think it better to have two institutions\ncrippling one another, than one of healthy powers, competent to that\nhighest grade of instruction which neither, with a divided support,\ncould expect to attain.\n\nAnother argument may eventually arise in favor of consolidation. The\ncontingent gift at the late session, of fifty thousand dollars, for books\nand apparatus, shows a sense in the legislature that those objects are\nstill to be provided. If we fail in obtaining that sum, they will feel\nan incumbency to provide it otherwise. What so ready as the derelict\ncapital of William and Mary, and the large library they uselessly\npossess? Should that college then be removed, I cannot doubt that the\nlegislature, keeping in view its original object, will consolidate it\nwith the University.\n\nBut it will not be removed. Richmond is doubtless in earnest, but that the\nvisitors should concur is impossible. The professors are the prime-movers,\nand do not mean exactly what they propose. They hold up this raw-head\nand bloody-bones _in terrorem_ to us, to force us to receive them into\nour institution. Men who have degraded and foundered the vessel whose\nhelm was entrusted to them, want now to force their incompetence on us.\nI know none of them personally, but judge of them from the fact and the\nopinion I hear from every one acquainted with the case, that it has been\ndestroyed by their incompetence and mis-management. Until the death of\nBishop Madison, it kept at its usual stand of about eighty students. It\nis now dwindled to about twenty, and the professors acknowledge that on\nopening our doors, theirs may be shut. Their funds in that case, would\ncertainly be acceptable and salutary to us. But not with the incubus of\ntheir faculty. When they find that their feint gives us no alarm, they\nwill retract, will recall their grammar school, make their college useful\nas a sectional school of preparation for the University, and teach the\nlanguages, surveying, navigation, plane trigonometry, and such other\nelements of science as will be useful to many whose views do not call\nfor a university education.\n\nI will only add to this long letter an opinion that we had better say\nas little as we can on this whole subject; give them no alarm; let them\npetition for the removal; let them get the old structure completely on\nwheels, and not till then put in our claim to its reception. I shall\ncommunicate your letter, as you request, to Mr. Madison, and with it\nthis answer. Why can you not call on us on your way to Warminster, and\nmake this a subject of conversation? With my devoted respects to Mrs.\nCabell, assure her that she can be nowhere more cordially received than\nby the family of Monticello. And the deviation from your direct road is\ntoo small to merit consideration. Ever and affectionately your friend\nand servant.\n\n\nTO MAJOR JOHN CARTWRIGHT.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 5, 1824.\n\nDEAR AND VENERABLE SIR,--I am much indebted for your kind letter\nof February the 29th, and for your valuable volume on the English\nconstitution. I have read this with pleasure and much approbation, and\nthink it has deduced the constitution of the English nation from its\nrightful root, the Anglo-Saxon. It is really wonderful, that so many able\nand learned men should have failed in their attempts to define it with\ncorrectness. No wonder then, that Paine, who thought more than he read,\nshould have credited the great authorities who have declared, that the\nwill of parliament is the constitution of England. So Marbois, before\nthe French revolution, observed to me, that the Almanac Royal was the\nconstitution of France. Your derivation of it from the Anglo-Saxons,\nseems to be made on legitimate principles. Having driven out the former\ninhabitants of that part of the island called England, they became\naborigines as to you, and your lineal ancestors. They doubtless had a\nconstitution; and although they have not left it in a written formula,\nto the precise text of which you may always appeal, yet they have left\nfragments of their history and laws, from which it may be inferred\nwith considerable certainty. Whatever their history and laws show to\nhave been practised with approbation, we may presume was permitted by\ntheir constitution; whatever was not so practiced, was not permitted.\nAnd although this constitution was violated and set at naught by Norman\nforce, yet force cannot change right. A perpetual claim was kept up by the\nnation, by their perpetual demand of a restoration of their Saxon laws,\nwhich shows they were never relinquished by the will of the nation. In\nthe pullings and haulings for these ancient rights, between the nation,\nand its kings of the races of Plantagenets, Tudors and Stuarts, there\nwas sometimes gain, and sometimes loss, until the final re-conquest of\ntheir rights from the Stuarts. The destitution and expulsion of this\nrace broke the thread of pretended inheritance, extinguished all regal\nusurpations, and the nation re-entered into all its rights; and although\nin their bill of rights they specifically reclaimed some only, yet the\nomission of the others was no renunciation of the right to assume their\nexercise also, whenever occasion should occur. The new King received\nno rights or powers, but those expressly granted to him. It has ever\nappeared to me, that the difference between the whig and the tory of\nEngland is, that the whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon source,\nand the tory from the Norman. And Hume, the great apostle of toryism,\nsays, in so many words, note AA to chapter 42, that, in the reign of\nthe Stuarts, \"it was the people who encroached upon the sovereign, not\nthe sovereign who attempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people.\"\nThis supposes the Norman usurpations to be rights in his successors. And\nagain, C, 159, \"the commons established a principle, which is noble in\nitself, and seems specious, but is belied by all history and experience,\n_that the people are the origin of all just power_.\" And where else will\nthis degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the\norigin of _just_ powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it\nbe in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?\n\nOur Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us\nan album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no\noccasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or\nto investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry.\nWe appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts.\nYet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position.\nWe had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to\nassume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had\nentered little into our former education. We established however some,\nalthough not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of\nour States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they\nmay exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves\ncompetent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative,\nand deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any\nfact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally\nchosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that\nthey are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of\nproperty, and freedom of the press. In the structure of our legislatures,\nwe think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to\ntwo separate bodies of deliberants; but in constituting these, natural\nright has been mistaken, some making one of these bodies, and some both,\nthe representatives of property instead of persons; whereas the double\ndeliberation might be as well obtained without any violation of true\nprinciple, either by requiring a greater age in one of the bodies, or by\nelecting a proper number of representatives of persons, dividing them by\nlots into two chambers, and renewing the division at frequent intervals,\nin order to break up all cabals. Virginia, of which I am myself a native\nand resident, was not only the first of the States, but, I believe I may\nsay, the first of the nations of the earth, which assembled its wise men\npeaceably together to form a fundamental constitution, to commit it to\nwriting, and place it among their archives, where every one should be\nfree to appeal to its text. But this act was very imperfect. The other\nStates, as they proceeded successively to the same work, made successive\nimprovements; and several of them, still further corrected by experience,\nhave, by conventions, still further amended their first forms. My own\nState has gone on so far with its _premiere ebauche_; but it is now\nproposing to call a convention for amendment. Among other improvements,\nI hope they will adopt the subdivision of our counties into wards.\nThe former may be estimated at an average of twenty-four miles square;\nthe latter should be about six miles square each, and would answer to\nthe hundreds of your Saxon Alfred. In each of these might be, 1st. An\nelementary school; 2d. A company of militia, with its officers; 3d. A\njustice of the peace and constable; 4th. Each ward should take care of\ntheir own poor; 5th. Their own roads; 6th. Their own police; 7th. Elect\nwithin themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of justice;\nand 8th. Give in at their Folk-house, their votes for all functionaries\nreserved to their election. Each ward would thus be a small republic\nwithin itself, and every man in the State would thus become an acting\nmember of the common government, transacting in person a great portion of\nits rights and duties, subordinate indeed, yet important, and entirely\nwithin his competence. The wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis\nfor a free, durable and well-administered republic.\n\nWith respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their\nrelations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose\nthe former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are\nco-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State\ngovernments are reserved all legislation and administration, in affairs\nwhich concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government\nis given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States;\nthese functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the\nother the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control\nover the other, but within its own department. There are one or two\nexceptions only to this partition of power. But, you may ask, if the\ntwo departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is\nthe common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little\nimportance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them\naloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor\ncompromised, a convention of the States must be called, to ascribe the\ndoubtful power to that department which they may think best. You will\nperceive by these details, that we have not yet so far perfected our\nconstitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable. But still, in\ntheir present state, we consider them not otherwise changeable than by\nthe authority of the people, on a special election of representatives\nfor that purpose expressly: they are until then the _lex legum_.\n\nBut can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, and\nall others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the\nearth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong\nto persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The\ndead are not even things. The particles of matter which composed their\nbodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or\nminerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the rights and\npowers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself\nas long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared,\nanother majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their\npredecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions\nto suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and\nunalienable rights of man.\n\nI was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of\nthe judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges\nhave usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part\nof the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced,\nis incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the\nAnglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard\nthe name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had\never existed. But it may amuse you, to show when, and by what means,\nthey stole this law in upon us. In a case of _quare impedit_ in the\nYear-book 34, II, 6, folio 38, (anno 1458,) a question was made, how\nfar the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court?\nAnd Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words: \"A tiel\nleis qu'ils de seint eglise ont en _ancien scripture_, covient \u00e0 nous\n\u00e0 donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners leis sont\nfond\u00e9s. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obl\u00e8g\u00e9s de conustre lour ley de saint\neglise; et semblablement ils sont oblig\u00e9s de consustre nostre ley. Et,\nSir, si poit apperer or \u00e0 nous que l'evesque ad fait come un ordinary\nfera en tiel cas, adong nous devons cee adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,\"\n&c. See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89, Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch in\nhis first book, c. 3, is the first afterwards who quotes this case and\nmistakes it thus: \"To such laws of the church as have warrant in _holy\nscripture_, our law giveth credence.\" And cites Prisot; mistranslating\n\"_ancien scripture_,\" into \"_holy scripture_.\" Whereas Prisot palpably\nsays, \"to such laws as those of holy church have in _ancient writing_,\nit is proper for us to give credence,\" to wit, to their _ancient written_\nlaws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot.\nWingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common\nlaw, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot, Wing. Max. 3. And\nSheppard, title, \"Religion,\" in 1675, copies the same mistranslation,\nquoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words:\n\"Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.\" 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb.\n607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from\none to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case\nof the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it\nto be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in\nthe temporal court at common law? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still\nto vary the phrase, and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are\noffences by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763,\nIV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that \"Christianity is part of the laws\nof England,\" citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield,\nwith a little qualification, in Evans' case, in 1767, says, that \"the\nessential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.\"\nThus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into the common law, without\nciting any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging\nlink by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same\nhook, and that a mistranslation of the words \"_ancien scripture_,\" used\nby Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes\nPrisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's\ncase, cites Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's\ncase and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own\nauthority. Here I might defy the best-read lawyer to produce another\nscrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further\nto show, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text\nof Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d chapters of Exodus, and\nthe 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23d to the 29th verses.\nBut this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy\nthis, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all,\nSing Tantarara, rogues all!\n\nI must still add to this long and rambling letter, my acknowledgments\nfor your good wishes to the University we are now establishing in this\nState. There are some novelties in it. Of that of a professorship of\nthe principles of government, you express your approbation. They will be\nfounded in the rights of man. That of agriculture, I am sure, you will\napprove; and that also of Anglo-Saxon. As the histories and laws left us\nin that type and dialect, must be the text books of the reading of the\nlearners, they will imbibe with the language their free principles of\ngovernment. The volumes you have been so kind as to send, shall be placed\nin the library of the University. Having at this time in England a person\nsent for the purpose of selecting some Professors, a Mr. Gilmer of my\nneighborhood, I cannot but recommend him to your patronage, counsel and\nguardianship, against imposition, misinformation, and the deceptions of\npartial and false recommendations, in the selection of characters. He is\na gentleman of great worth and correctness, my particular friend, well\neducated in various branches of science, and worthy of entire confidence.\n\nYour age of eighty-four and mine of eighty-one years, insure us a speedy\nmeeting. We may then commune at leisure, and more fully, on the good and\nevil which, in the course of our long lives, we have both witnessed; and\nin the meantime, I pray you to accept assurances of my high veneration\nand esteem for your person and character.\n\n\nTO MARTIN VAN BUREN.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 29, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have to thank you for Mr. Pickering's elaborate philippic\nagainst Mr. Adams, Gerry, Smith, and myself; and I have delayed the\nacknowledgment until I could read it and make some observations on it.\n\nI could not have believed, that for so many years, and to such a period of\nadvanced age, he could have nourished passions so vehement and viperous.\nIt appears, that for thirty-years past, he has been industriously\ncollecting materials for vituperating the characters he had marked for his\nhatred; some of whom, certainly, if enmities towards him had ever existed,\nhad forgotten them all, or buried them in the grave with themselves. As\nto myself, there never had been anything personal between us, nothing but\nthe general opposition of party sentiment; and our personal intercourse\nhad been that of urbanity, as himself says. But it seems he has been all\nthis time brooding over an enmity which I had never felt, and that with\nrespect to myself, as well as others, he has been writing far and near,\nand in every direction, to get hold of original letters, where he could,\ncopies, where he could not, certificates and journals, catching at every\ngossiping story he could hear of in any quarter, supplying by suspicions\nwhat he could find nowhere else, and then arguing on this motley farrago,\nas if established on gospel evidence. And while expressing his wonder,\nthat \"at the age of eighty-eight, the strong passions of Mr. Adams should\nnot have cooled;\" that on the contrary, \"they had acquired the mastery\nof his soul,\" (p. 100;) that \"where these were enlisted, no reliance\ncould be placed on his statements,\" (p. 104;) the facility and little\ntruth with which he could represent facts and occurrences, concerning\npersons who were the objects of his hatred, (p. 3;) that \"he is capable\nof making the grossest misrepresentations, and, from detached facts,\nand often from bare suspicions, of drawing unwarrantable inferences,\nif suited to his purpose at the instant,\" (p. 171;) while making such\ncharges, I say, on Mr. Adams, instead of his \"_ecce homo_\" (p. 100;) how\njustly might we say to him, \"_mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur_.\" For\nthe assiduity and industry he has employed in his benevolent researches\nafter matter of crimination against us, I refer to his pages 13, 14,\n34, 36, 46, 71, 79, 90, bis. 92, 93, bis. 101, ter. 104, 116, 118, 141,\n143, 146, 150, 151, 153, 168, 171, 172. That Mr. Adams' strictures on\nhim, written and printed, should have excited some notice on his part,\nwas not perhaps to be wondered at. But the sufficiency of his motive for\nthe large attack on me may be more questionable. He says, (p. 4) \"of Mr.\nJefferson I should have said nothing, but for his letter to Mr. Adams,\nof October the 12th, 1823.\" Now the object of that letter was to soothe\nthe feelings of a friend, wounded by a publication which I thought an\n\"outrage on private confidence.\" Not a word or allusion in it respecting\nMr. Pickering, nor was it suspected that it would draw forth his pen in\njustification of this infidelity, which he has, however, undertaken in\nthe course of his pamphlet, but more particularly in its conclusion.\n\nHe arraigns me on two grounds, my actions and my motives. The very\nactions, however, which he arraigns, have been such as the great majority\nof my fellow citizens have approved. The approbation of Mr. Pickering,\nand of those who thought with him, I had no right to expect. My motives\nhe chooses to ascribe to hypocrisy, to ambition, and a passion for\npopularity. Of these the world must judge between us. It is no office\nof his or mine. To that tribunal I have ever submitted my actions and\nmotives, without ransacking the Union for certificates, letters, journals,\nand gossiping tales, to justify myself and weary them. Nor shall I do\nthis on the present occasion, but leave still to them these antiquated\nparty diatribes, now newly revamped and paraded, as if they had not been\nalready a thousand times repeated, refuted, and adjudged against him,\nby the nation itself. If no action is to be deemed virtuous for which\nmalice can imagine a sinister motive, then there never was a virtuous\naction; no, not even in the life of our Saviour himself. But he has\ntaught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to him\nwho can alone see into them.\n\nBut whilst I leave to its fate the libel of Mr. Pickering, with the\nthousands of others like it, to which I have given no other answer than\na steady course of similar action, there are two facts or fancies of his\nwhich I must set to rights. The one respects Mr. Adams, the other myself.\nHe observes that my letter of October the 12th, 1823, acknowledges the\nreceipt of one from Mr. Adams, of September the 18th, which, having\nbeen written a few days after Cunningham's publication, he says was\nno doubt written to apologize to me for the pointed reproaches he had\nuttered against me in his confidential letters to Cunningham. And thus\nhaving \"no doubt\" of his conjecture, he considers it as proven, goes\non to suppose the contents of the letter, (19, 22,) makes it place Mr.\nAdams at my feet suing for pardon, and continues to rant upon it, as an\nundoubted fact. Now, I do most solemnly declare, that so far from being\na letter of apology, as Mr. Pickering so undoubtedly assumes, there was\nnot a word or allusion in it respecting Cunningham's publication.\n\nThe other allegation respecting myself, is equally false. In page 34,\nhe quotes Doctor Stuart as having, twenty years ago, informed him that\nGeneral Washington, \"when he became a private citizen,\" called me to\naccount for expressions in a letter to Mazzei, requiring, in a tone of\nunusual severity, an explanation of that letter. He adds of himself, \"in\nwhat manner the latter humbled himself and appeased the just resentment\nof Washington, will never be made known, as some time after his death the\ncorrespondence was not to be found, and a diary for an important period of\nhis presidency was also missing.\" The diary being of transactions during\nhis presidency, the letter to Mazzei not known here until some time _after\nhe became a private citizen_, and the pretended correspondence of course\nafter that, I know not why this lost diary and supposed correspondence\nare brought together here, unless for insinuations worthy of the letter\nitself. The correspondence could not be found, indeed, because it had\nnever existed. I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or\nverbal, directly or indirectly, between General Washington and myself\non the subject of that letter. He would never have degraded himself so\nfar as to take to himself the imputation in that letter on the \"Samsons\nin combat.\" The whole story is a fabrication, and I defy the framers\nof it, and all mankind, to produce a scrip of a pen between General\nWashington and myself on the subject, or any other evidence more worthy\nof credit than the suspicions, suppositions and presumptions of the two\npersons here quoting and quoted for it. With Doctor Stuart I had not much\nacquaintance. I supposed him to be an honest man, knew him to be a very\nweak one, and, like Mr. Pickering, very prone to antipathies, boiling\nwith party passions, and under the dominion of these readily welcoming\nfancies for facts. But come the story from whomsoever it might, it is\nan unqualified falsehood.\n\nThis letter to Mazzei has been a precious theme of crimination for federal\nmalice. It was a long letter of business, in which was inserted a single\nparagraph only of political information as to the state of our country.\nIn this information there was not one word which would not then have\nbeen, or would not now be approved by every republican in the United\nStates, looking back to those times, as you will see by a faithful copy\nnow enclosed of the whole of what that letter said on the subject of\nthe United States, or of its government. This paragraph, extracted and\ntranslated, got into a Paris paper at a time when the persons in power\nthere were laboring under very general disfavor and their friends were\neager to catch even at straws to buoy them up. To them, therefore, I have\nalways imputed the interpolation of an entire paragraph additional to\nmine, which makes me charge my own country with ingratitude and injustice\nto France. There was not a word in my letter respecting France, or any\nof the proceedings or relations between this country and that. Yet this\ninterpolated paragraph has been the burthen of federal calumny, has been\nconstantly quoted by them, made the subject of unceasing and virulent\nabuse, and is still quoted, as you see, by Mr. Pickering, page 33, as if\nit were genuine, and really written by me. And even Judge Marshall makes\nhistory descend from its dignity, and the ermine from its sanctity, to\nexaggerate, to record, and to sanction this forgery. In the very last\nnote of his book, he says, \"a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Mazzei,\nan Italian, was published in Florence, and re-published in the Moniteur,\nwith very severe strictures on the conduct of the United States.\" And\ninstead of the letter itself, he copies what he says are the remarks\nof the editor, which are an exaggerated commentary on the fabricated\nparagraph itself, and silently leaves to his reader to make the ready\ninference that these were the sentiments of the letter. Proof is the duty\nof the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved. But, in\ndefect of impossible proof of what was not in the original letter, I have\nits press-copy still in my possession. It has been shown to several, and\nis open to any one who wishes to see it. I have presumed only, that the\ninterpolation was done in Paris. But I never saw the letter in either\nits Italian or French dress, and it may have been done here, with the\ncommentary handed down to posterity by the Judge. The genuine paragraph,\nre-translated through Italian and French into English, as it appeared here\nin a federal paper, besides the mutilated hue which these translations\nand re-translations of it produced generally, gave a mistranslation of a\nsingle word, which entirely perverted its meaning, and made it a pliant\nand fertile text of misrepresentation of my political principles. The\noriginal, speaking of an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party,\nwhich had sprung up since he had left us, states their object to be\n\"to draw over us the substance, as they had already done the _forms_ of\nthe British Government.\" Now the \"_forms_\" here meant, were the levees,\nbirthdays, the pompous cavalcade to the state house on the meeting of\nCongress, the formal speech from the throne, the procession of Congress\nin a body to re-echo the speech in an answer, &c., &c. But the translator\nhere, by substituting _form_ in the singular number, for _forms_ in the\nplural, made it mean the frame or organization of our government, or its\nform of legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, co\u00f6rdinate and\nindependent; to which _form_ it was to be inferred that I was an enemy.\nIn this sense they always quoted it, and in this sense Mr. Pickering\nstill quotes it, pages 34, 35, 38, and countenances the inference. Now\nGeneral Washington perfectly understood what I meant by these forms, as\nthey were frequent subjects of conversation between us. When, on my return\nfrom Europe, I joined the government in March, 1790, at New York, I was\nmuch astonished, indeed, at the mimicry I found established of royal\nforms and ceremonies, and more alarmed at the unexpected phenomenon, by\nthe monarchical sentiments I heard expressed and openly maintained in\nevery company, and among others by the high members of the government,\nexecutive and judiciary, (General Washington alone excepted,) and by a\ngreat part of the legislature, save only some members who had been of\nthe old Congress, and a very few of recent introduction. I took occasion,\nat various times, of expressing to General Washington my disappointment\nat these symptoms of a change of principle, and that I thought them\nencouraged by the forms and ceremonies which I found prevailing, not at\nall in character with the simplicity of republican government, and looking\nas if wishfully to those of European courts. His general explanations\nto me were, that when he arrived at New York to enter on the executive\nadministration of the new government, he observed to those who were\nto assist him that placed as he was in an office entirely new to him,\nunacquainted with the forms and ceremonies of other governments, still\nless apprized of those which might be properly established here, and\nhimself perfectly indifferent to all forms, he wished them to consider\nand prescribe what they should be; and the task was assigned particularly\nto General Knox, a man of parade, and to Colonel Humphreys, who had\nresided some time at a foreign court. They, he said, were the authors\nof the present regulations, and that others were proposed so highly\nstrained that he absolutely rejected them. Attentive to the difference of\nopinion prevailing on this subject, when the term of his second election\narrived, he called the Heads of departments together, observed to them\nthe situation in which he had been at the commencement of the government,\nthe advice he had taken and the course he had observed in compliance\nwith it; that a proper occasion had now arrived of revising that course,\nof correcting it in any particulars not approved in experience; and he\ndesired us to consult together, agree on any changes we should think\nfor the better, and that he should willingly conform to what we should\nadvise. We met at my office. Hamilton and myself agreed at once that\nthere was too much ceremony for the character of our government, and\nparticularly, that the parade of the installation at New York ought not to\nbe copied on the present occasion, that the President should desire the\nChief Justice to attend him at his chambers, that he should administer\nthe oath of office to him in the presence of the higher officers of the\ngovernment, and that the certificate of the fact should be delivered to\nthe Secretary of State to be recorded. Randolph and Knox differed from\nus, the latter vehemently; they thought it not advisable to change any of\nthe established forms, and we authorized Randolph to report our opinions\nto the President. As these opinions were divided, and no positive advice\ngiven as to any change, no change was made. Thus the forms which I had\ncensured in my letter to Mazzei were perfectly understood by General\nWashington, and were those which he himself but barely tolerated. He had\nfurnished me a proper occasion for proposing their reformation, and my\nopinion not prevailing, he knew I could not have meant any part of the\ncensure for him.\n\nMr. Pickering quotes, too, (page 34) the expression in the letter, of\n\"the men who were Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the council, but\nwho had had their heads shorn by the harlot England;\" or, as expressed in\ntheir re-translation, \"the men who were Solomons in council, and Samsons\nin combat, but whose hair had been cut off by the whore England.\" Now\nthis expression also was perfectly understood by General Washington.\nHe knew that I meant it for the Cincinnati generally, and that from\nwhat had passed between us at the commencement of that institution, I\ncould not mean to include him. When the first meeting was called for its\nestablishment, I was a member of the Congress then sitting at Annapolis.\nGeneral Washington wrote to me, asking my opinion on that proposition,\nand the course, if any, which I thought Congress would observe respecting\nit. I wrote him frankly my own disapprobation of it; that I found the\nmembers of Congress generally in the same sentiment; that I thought\nthey would take no express notice of it, but that in all appointments\nof trust, honor, or profit, they would silently pass by all candidates\nof that order, and give an uniform preference to others. On his way to\nthe first meeting in Philadelphia, which I think was in the spring of\n1784, he called on me at Annapolis. It was a little after candle-light,\nand he sat with me till after midnight, conversing, almost exclusively,\non that subject. While he was feelingly indulgent to the motives which\nmight induce the officers to promote it, he concurred with me entirely\nin condemning it; and when I expressed an idea that if the hereditary\nquality were suppressed, the institution might perhaps be indulged during\nthe lives of the officers now living, and who had actually served; \"no,\"\nhe said, \"not a fibre of it ought to be left, to be an eye-sore to the\npublic, a ground of dissatisfaction, and a line of separation between\nthem and their country;\" and he left me with a determination to use\nall his influence for its entire suppression. On his return from the\nmeeting he called on me again, and related to me the course the thing\nhad taken. He said that from the beginning, he had used every endeavor\nto prevail on the officers to renounce the project altogether, urging\nthe many considerations which would render it odious to their fellow\ncitizens, and disreputable and injurious to themselves; that he had at\nlength prevailed on most of the old officers to reject it, although with\ngreat and warm opposition from others, and especially the younger ones,\namong whom he named Colonel W. S. Smith as particularly intemperate. But\nthat in this state of things, when he thought the question safe, and the\nmeeting drawing to a close, Major L'Enfant arrived from France, with a\nbundle of eagles, for which he had been sent there, with letters from\nthe French officers who had served in America, praying for admission\ninto the order, and a solemn act of their king permitting them to wear\nits ensign. This, he said, changed the face of matters at once, produced\nan entire revolution of sentiment, and turned the torrent so strongly in\nan opposite direction that it could be no longer withstood; all he could\nthen obtain was a suppression of the hereditary quality. He added, that\nit was the French applications, and respect for the approbation of the\nking, which saved the establishment in its modified and temporary form.\nDisapproving thus of the institution as much as I did, and conscious\nthat I knew him to do so, he could never suppose that I meant to include\nhim among the Samsons in the field, whose object was to draw over us\nthe _form_, as they made the letter say, of the British government, and\nespecially its aristocratic member, an hereditary house of lords. Add\nto this, that the letter saying \"that two out of the three branches\nof legislature were against us,\" was an obvious exception of him; it\nbeing well known that the majorities in the two branches of Senate and\nRepresentatives, were the very instruments which carried, in opposition\nto the old and real republicans, the measures which were the subjects\nof condemnation in this letter. General Washington then, understanding\nperfectly what and whom I meant to designate, in both phrases, and that\nthey could not have any application or view to himself, could find in\nneither any cause of offence to himself; and therefore neither needed, nor\never asked any explanation of them from me. Had it even been otherwise,\nthey must know very little of General Washington, who should believe to\nbe within the laws of his character what Doctor Stuart is said to have\nimputed to him. Be this, however, as it may, the story is infamously\nfalse in every article of it. My last parting with General Washington\nwas at the inauguration of Mr. Adams, in March, 1797, and was warmly\naffectionate; and I never had any reason to believe any change on his\npart, as there certainly was none on mine. But one session of Congress\nintervened between that and his death, the year following, in my passage\nto and from which, as it happened to be not convenient to call on him, I\nnever had another opportunity; and as to the cessation of correspondence\nobserved during that short interval, no particular circumstance occurred\nfor epistolary communication, and both of us were too much oppressed\nwith letter-writing, to trouble, either the other, with a letter about\nnothing.\n\nThe truth is, that the federalists, pretending to be the exclusive\nfriends of General Washington, have ever done what they could to sink\nhis character, by hanging theirs on it, and by representing as the enemy\nof republicans him, who, of all men, is best entitled to the appellation\nof the father of that republic which they were endeavoring to subvert,\nand the republicans to maintain. They cannot deny, because the elections\nproclaimed the truth, that the great body of the nation approved the\nrepublican measures. General Washington was himself sincerely a friend\nto the republican principles of our constitution. His faith, perhaps,\nin its duration, might not have been as confident as mine; but he\nrepeatedly declared to me, that he was determined it should have a fair\nchance for success, and that he would lose the last drop of his blood in\nits support, against any attempt which might be made to change it from\nits republican form. He made these declarations the oftener, because\nhe knew my suspicions that Hamilton had other views, and he wished to\nquiet my jealousies on this subject. For Hamilton frankly avowed, that\nhe considered the British constitution, with all the corruptions of its\nadministration, as the most perfect model of government which had ever\nbeen devised by the wit of man; professing however, at the same time,\nthat the spirit of this country was so fundamentally republican, that\nit would be visionary to think of introducing monarchy here, and that,\ntherefore, it was the duty of its administrators to conduct it on the\nprinciples their constituents had elected.\n\nGeneral Washington, after the retirement of his first cabinet, and the\ncomposition of his second, entirely federal, and at the head of which\nwas Mr. Pickering himself, had no opportunity of hearing both sides of\nany question. His measures, consequently, took more the hue of the party\nin whose hands he was. These measures were certainly not approved by the\nrepublicans; yet were they not imputed to him, but to the counsellors\naround him; and his prudence so far restrained their impassioned course\nand bias, that no act of strong mark, during the remainder of his\nadministration, excited much dissatisfaction. He lived too short a time\nafter, and too much withdrawn from information, to correct the views\ninto which he had been deluded; and the continued assiduities of the\nparty drew him into the vortex of their intemperate career; separated\nhim still farther from his real friends, and excited him to actions\nand expressions of dissatisfaction, which grieved them, but could not\nloosen their affections from him. They would not suffer the temporary\naberration to weigh against the immeasurable merits of his life; and\nalthough they tumbled his seducers from their places, they preserved his\nmemory embalmed in their hearts, with undiminished love and devotion;\nand there it forever will remain embalmed, in entire oblivion of every\ntemporary thing which might cloud the glories of his splendid life. It\nis vain, then, for Mr. Pickering and his friends to endeavor to falsify\nhis character, by representing him as an enemy to republicans and\nrepublican principles, and as exclusively the friend of those who were\nso; and had he lived longer, he would have returned to his ancient and\nunbiased opinions, would have replaced his confidence in those whom the\npeople approved and supported, and would have seen that they were only\nrestoring and acting on the principles of his own first administration.\n\nI find, my dear Sir, that I have written you a very long letter, or rather\na history. The civility of having sent me a copy of Mr. Pickering's\ndiatribe, would scarcely justify its address to you. I do not publish\nthese things, because my rule of life has been never to harass the\npublic with fendings and provings of personal slanders; and least of\nall would I descend into the arena of slander with such a champion as\nMr. Pickering. I have ever trusted to the justice and consideration of\nmy fellow citizens, and have no reason to repent it, or to change my\ncourse. At this time of life too, tranquillity is the _summum bonum_.\nBut although I decline all newspaper controversy, yet when falsehoods\nhave been advanced, within the knowledge of no one so much as myself,\nI have sometimes deposited a contradiction in the hands of a friend,\nwhich, if worth preservation, may, when I am no more, nor those whom I\nmight offend, throw light on history, and recall that into the path of\ntruth. And if of no other value, the present communication may amuse\nyou with anecdotes not known to every one.\n\nI had meant to have added some views on the amalgamation of parties, to\nwhich your favor of the 8th has some allusion; an amalgamation of name,\nbut not of principle. Tories are tories still, by whatever name they may\nbe called. But my letter is already too unmercifully long, and I close\nit here with assurances of my great esteem and respectful consideration.\n\n\nTO MR. MADISON.\n\n MONTICELLO, July 14, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have attentively read your letter to Mr. Wheaton on the\nquestion whether, at the date of the message to Congress recommending the\nembargo of 1807, we had knowledge of the order of council of November\n11th; and according to your request I have resorted to my papers, as\nwell as my memory, for the testimony these might afford additional to\nyours. There is no fact in the course of my life which I recollect more\nstrongly, than that of my being at the date of the message in possession\nof an English newspaper containing a copy of the proclamation. I am\nalmost certain, too, that it was under the ordinary authentication of the\ngovernment; and between November 11th and December 17th, there was time\nenough (thirty-five days) to admit the receipt of such a paper, which I\nthink came to me through a private channel, probably put on board some\nvessel about sailing, the moment it appeared.\n\nTurning to my papers, I find that I had prepared a first draught of a\nmessage in which was this paragraph: \"The British regulations had before\nreduced us to a direct voyage, to a single port of their enemies, and\nit is now believed they will interdict all commerce whatever with them.\nA proclamation, too, of that government of----(not officially indeed\ncommunicated to us, yet so given out to the public as to become a rule\nof action with them,) seems to have shut the door on all negotiation\nwith us except as to the single aggression on the Chesapeake.\" You,\nhowever, suggested a substitute (which I have now before me, written\nwith a pencil and) which, with some unimportant amendments, I preferred\nto my own, and was the one I sent to Congress. It was in these words,\n\"the _communications_ now made, showing the great and increasing dangers\nwith which seamen, &c.,----ports of the United States.\" This shows that\nwe communicated to them papers of information on the subject; and as it\nwas our interest, and our duty, to give them the strongest information\nwe possessed to justify our opinion and their action on it, there can\nbe no doubt we sent them this identical paper. For what stronger could\nwe send them? I am the more strengthened in the belief that we did send\nit, from the fact, which the newspapers of the day will prove, that in\nthe reprobations of the measure published in them by its enemies, they\nindulged themselves in severe criticisms on our having considered a\nnewspaper as a proper document to lay before Congress, and a sufficient\nfoundation for so serious a measure; and considering this as no sufficient\ninformation of the fact, they continued perseveringly to deny that we\nhad knowledge of the order of council when we recommended the embargo;\nadmitting, because they could not deny, the existence of the order,\nthey insisted only on our supposed ignorance of it as furnishing them\na ground of crimination. But I had no idea that this gratuitous charge\nwas believed by any one at this day. In addition to our testimony, I am\nsure Mr. Gallatin, General Dearborne and Mr. Smith, will recollect that\nwe possessed the newspaper, and acted on a view of the proclamation it\ncontained. If you think this statement can add anything in corroboration\nof yours, make what use you please of it, and accept assurances of my\nconstant affection and respect.\n\n\nTO MR. LEWIS E. BECK, ALBANY.\n\nI thank you, Sir, for your pamphlet on the climate of the west, and have\nread it with great satisfaction. Although it does not yet establish a\nsatisfactory theory, it is an additional step towards it. Mine was perhaps\nthe first attempt, not to form a theory, but to bring together the few\nfacts then known, and suggest them to public attention. They were written\nbetween forty and fifty years ago, before the close of the revolutionary\nwar, when the western country was a wilderness, untrodden but by the\nfoot of the savage or the hunter. It is now flourishing in population\nand science, and after a few years more of observation and collection\nof facts, they will doubtless furnish a theory of solid foundation.\nYears are requisite for this, steady attention to the thermometer, to\nthe plants growing there, the times of their leafing and flowering, its\nanimal inhabitants, beasts, birds, reptiles and insects; its prevalent\nwinds, quantities of rain and snow, temperature of fountains, and other\nindexes of climate. We want this indeed for all the States, and the work\nshould be repeated once or twice in a century, to show the effect of\nclearing and culture towards changes of climate. My Notes give a very\nimperfect idea of what our climate was, half a century ago, at this\nplace, which being nearly central to the State may be taken for its\nmedium. Latterly, after seven years of close and exact observation, I\nhave prepared an estimate of what it is now, which may some day be added\nto the former work; and I hope something like this is doing in the other\nStates, which, when all shall be brought together, may produce theories\nmeriting confidence. I trust that yourself will not be inattentive to\nthis service, and that to that of the present epoch you may be able to\nadd a second at the distance of another half century. With this wish\naccept the assurance of my respectful consideration.\n\n\nTO H. LEE.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 10, 1824.\n\nSIR,--I have duly received your favor of the 14th, and with it the\nprospectus of a newspaper which it covered. If the style and spirit of\nthat should be maintained in the paper itself, it will be truly worthy\nof the public patronage. As to myself, it is many years since I have\nceased to read but a single paper. I am no longer, therefore, a general\nsubscriber for any other. Yet, to encourage the hopeful in the outset,\nI have sometimes subscribed for the first year on condition of being\ndiscontinued at the end of it, without further warning. I do the same\nnow with pleasure for yours; and unwilling to have outstanding accounts,\nwhich I am liable to forget, I now enclose the price of the tri-weekly\npaper. I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider\nit as either desirable or useful for the public; but only that, like\nreligious differences, a difference in politics should never be permitted\nto enter into social intercourse, or to disturb its friendships, its\ncharities, or justice. In that form, they are censors of the conduct of\neach other, and useful watchmen for the public. Men by their constitutions\nare naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust\nthe people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the\nhigher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have\nconfidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and\nsafe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.\nIn every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they\nare free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call\nthem, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and ultras, whigs and\ntories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by\nwhatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue\nthe same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the\ntrue one expressing the essence of all. A paper which shall be governed\nby the spirit of Mr. Madison's celebrated report, of which you express\nin your prospectus so just and high an approbation, cannot be false to\nthe rights of all classes. The grandfathers of the present generation\nof your family I knew well. They were friends and fellow laborers with\nme in the same cause and principle. Their descendants cannot follow\nbetter guides. Accept the assurance of my best wishes and respectful\nconsideration.\n\n\nTO MR. WM. LUDLOW.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 6, 1824.\n\nSIR,--The idea which you present in your letter of July 30th, of the\nprogress of society from its rudest state to that it has now attained,\nseems conformable to what may be probably conjectured. Indeed, we have\nunder our eyes tolerable proofs of it. Let a philosophic observer commence\na journey from the savages of the Rocky Mountains, eastwardly towards our\nsea-coast. These he would observe in the earliest stage of association\nliving under no law but that of nature, subscribing and covering\nthemselves with the flesh and skins of wild beasts. He would next find\nthose on our frontiers in the pastoral state, raising domestic animals\nto supply the defects of hunting. Then succeed our own semi-barbarous\ncitizens, the pioneers of the advance of civilization, and so in his\nprogress he would meet the gradual shades of improving man until he\nwould reach his, as yet, most improved state in our seaport towns. This,\nin fact, is equivalent to a survey, in time, of the progress of man\nfrom the infancy of creation to the present day. I am eighty-one years\nof age, born where I now live, in the first range of mountains in the\ninterior of our country. And I have observed this march of civilization\nadvancing from the sea coast, passing over us like a cloud of light,\nincreasing our knowledge and improving our condition, insomuch as that\nwe are at this time more advanced in civilization here than the seaports\nwere when I was a boy. And where this progress will stop no one can say.\nBarbarism has, in the meantime, been receding before the steady step of\namelioration; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the earth. You\nseem to think that this advance has brought on too complicated a state\nof society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our\nsteps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of\ngovernment than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor\nof the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief\nof those who maintain it. Your experiment seems to have this in view. A\nsociety of seventy families, the number you name, may very possibly be\ngoverned as a single family, subsisting on their common industry, and\nholding all things in common. Some regulators of the family you still\nmust have, and it remains to be seen at what period of your increasing\npopulation your simple regulations will cease to be sufficient to preserve\norder, peace, and justice. The experiment is interesting; I shall not\nlive to see its issue, but I wish it success equal to your hopes, and\nto yourself and society prosperity and happiness.\n\n\nTO GENERAL LA FAYETTE.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 9, 1824.\n\nI have duly received, my dear friend and General, your letter of the\n1st from Philadelphia, giving us the welcome assurance that you will\nvisit the neighborhood which, during the march of our enemy near it, was\ncovered by your shield from his robberies and ravages. In passing the\nline of your former march you will experience pleasing recollections of\nthe good you have done. My neighbors, too, of our academical village,\nwho well remember their obligations to you, have expressed to you, in\na letter from a committee appointed for that purpose, their hope that\nyou will accept manifestations of their feelings, simple indeed, but as\ncordial as any you will have received. It will be an additional honor\nto the University of the State that you will have been its first guest.\nGratify them, then, by this assurance to their committee, if it has not\nbeen done. But what recollections, dear friend, will this call up to\nyou and me! What a history have we to run over from the evening that\nyourself, Mousnier, Bernau, and other patriots settled, in my house\nin Paris, the outlines of the constitution you wished! And to trace it\nthrough all the disastrous chapters of Robespierre, Barras, Bonaparte,\nand the Bourbons! These things, however, are for our meeting. You mention\nthe return of Miss Wright to America, accompanied by her sister; but do\nnot say what her stay is to be, nor what her course. Should it lead her\nto a visit of our University, which, in its architecture only, is as yet\nan object, herself and her companion will nowhere find a welcome more\nhearty than with Mrs. Randolph, and all the inhabitants of Monticello.\nThis Athen\u00e6um of our country, in embryo, is as yet but promise; and not\nin a state to recall the recollections of Athens. But everything has its\nbeginning, its growth, and end; and who knows with what future delicious\nmorsels of philosophy, and by what future Miss Wright raked from its\nruins, the world may, some day, be gratified and instructed? Your son\nGeorge we shall be very happy indeed to see, and to renew in him the\nrecollections of your very dear family; and the revolutionary merit of\nM. le Vasseur has that passport to the esteem of every American, and, to\nme, the additional one of having been your friend and co-operator, and\nhe will, I hope, join you in making head-quarters with us at Monticello.\nBut all these things _\u00e0 revoir_, in the meantime we are impatient that\nyour ceremonies at York should be over, and give you to the embraces of\nfriendship.\n\nP. S. Will you come by Mr. Madison's, or let him or me know on what day\nhe may meet you here, and join us in our greetings?\n\n\nTO MR. RUSH.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 13, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I must again beg the protection of your cover for a letter\nto Mr. Gilmer; although a little doubtful whether he may not have left\nyou.\n\nYou will have seen by our papers the delirium into which our citizens\nare thrown by a visit from General La Fayette. He is making a triumphant\nprogress through the States, from town to town, with acclamations of\nwelcome, such as no crowned head ever received. It will have a good\neffect in favor of the General with the people in Europe, but probably\na different one with their sovereigns. Its effect here, too, will be\nsalutary as to ourselves, by rallying us together and strengthening the\nhabit of considering our country as one and indivisible, and I hope we\nshall close it with something more solid for him than dinners and balls.\nThe eclat of this visit has almost merged the Presidential question,\non which nothing scarcely is said in our papers. That question will\nlie ultimately between Crawford and Adams; but, at the same time, the\nvote of the people will be so distracted by subordinate candidates,\nthat possibly they may make no election, and let it go to the House of\nRepresentatives. There, it is thought, Crawford's chance is best. We\nhave nothing else interesting before the public. Of the two questions\nof the tariff and public improvements, the former, perhaps, is not yet\nat rest, and the latter will excite boisterous discussions. It happens\nthat both these measures fall in with the western interests, and it is\ntheir secession from the agricultural States which gives such strength to\nthe manufacturing and consolidating parties, on these two questions. The\nlatter is the most dreaded, because thought to amount to a determination\nin the federal government to assume all powers non-enumerated as well as\nenumerated in the constitution, and by giving a loose to construction,\nmake the text say whatever will relieve them from the bridle of the\nStates. These are difficulties for your day; I shall give them the slip.\nAccept the assurance of my friendly attachment and great respect.\n\n\nTO EDWARD EVERETT.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 15, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have yet to thank for your \u03a6. \u0392. \u039a. oration, delivered in\npresence of General La Fayette. It is all excellent, much of it sublimely\nso, well worthy of its author and his subject, of whom we may truly say,\nas was said of Germanicus, \"_fruitur fam\u00e2 sui_.\"\n\nYour letter of September the 10th gave me the first information that mine\nto Major Cartwright had got into the newspapers; and the first notice,\nindeed, that he had received it. I was a stranger to his person, but not\nto his respectable and patriotic character. I received from him a long\nand interesting letter, and answered it with frankness, going without\nreserve into several subjects, to which his letter had led, but on which\nI did not suppose I was writing for the newspapers. The publication of\na letter in such a case, without the consent of the writer, is not a\nfair practice.\n\nThe part which you quote, may draw on me the host of judges and divines.\nThey may cavil but cannot refute it. Those who read Prisot's opinion\nwith a candid view to understand, and not to chicane it, cannot mistake\nits meaning. The reports in the Year-books were taken very short. The\nopinions of the judges were written down sententiously, as notes or\nmemoranda, and not with all the development which they probably used\nin delivering them. Prisot's opinion, to be fully expressed, should be\nthus paraphrased: \"To such laws as those of holy church have recorded,\nand preserved in their ancient books and writings, it is proper for\nus to give credence; for so is, or so says the common law, or law of\nthe land, on which all manner of other laws rest for their authority,\nor are founded; that is to say, the common law, or the law of the land\ncommon to us all, and established by the authority of us all, is that\nfrom which is derived the authority of all other special and subordinate\nbranches of law, such as the canon law, law merchant, law maritime, law of\nGavelkind, Borough English, corporation laws, local customs and usages,\nto all of which the common law requires its judges to permit authority\nin the special or local cases belonging to them. The evidence of these\nlaws is preserved in their ancient treatises, books and writings, in like\nmanner as our own common law itself is known, the text of its original\nenactments having been long lost, and its substance only preserved in\nancient and traditionary writings. And if it appears, from their ancient\nbooks, writings and records, that the bishop, in this case, according\nto the rules prescribed by these authorities, has done what an ordinary\nwould have done in such case, then we should adjudge it good, otherwise\nnot.\" To decide this question, they would have to turn to the ancient\nwritings and records of the canon law, in which they would find evidence\nof the laws of advowsons, _quare impedit_, the duties of bishops and\nordinaries, for which terms Prisot could never have meant to refer them\nto the Old or New Testament, _les saincts scriptures_, where surely they\nwould not be found. A license which should permit \"_ancien scripture_\"\nto be translated \"holy scripture,\" annihilates at once all the evidence\nof language. With such a license, we might reverse the sixth commandment\ninto \"thou shall not omit murder.\" It would be the more extraordinary\nin this case, where the mistranslation was to effect the adoption of the\nwhole code of the Jewish and Christian laws into the text of our statutes,\nto convert religious offences into temporal crimes, to make the breach\nof every religious precept a subject of indictment, submit the question\nof idolatry, for example, to the trial of a jury, and to a court, its\npunishment, to the third and fourth generation of the offender. Do we\nallow to our judges this lumping legislation?\n\nThe term \"common law,\" although it has more than one meaning, is perfectly\ndefinite, _secundum subjectam materiem_. Its most probable origin was on\nthe conquest of the Heptarchy by Alfred, and the amalgamation of their\nseveral codes of law into one, which became _common_ to them all. The\nauthentic text of these enactments has not been preserved; but their\nsubstance has been committed to many ancient books and writings, so\nfaithfully as to have been deemed genuine from generation to generation,\nand obeyed as such by all. We have some fragments of them collected by\nLambard, Wilkins and others, but abounding with proofs of their spurious\nauthenticity. Magna Charta is the earliest statute, the text of which\nhas come down to us in an authentic form, and thence downward we have\nthem entire. We do not know exactly when the _common_ law and _statute_\nlaw, the _lex scripta et non scripta_, began to be contra-distinguished,\nso as to give a second acceptation to the former term; whether before,\nor after Prisot's day, at which time we know that nearly two centuries\nand a half of statutes were in preservation. In later times, on the\nintroduction of the chancery branch of law, the term _common_ law began\nto be used in a third sense, as the correlative of _chancery_ law. This,\nhowever, having been long after Prisot's time, could not have been the\nsense in which he used the term. He must have meant the ancient _lex non\nscripta_, because, had he used it as inclusive of the _lex scripta_, he\nwould have put his finger on the statute which had enjoined on the judges\na deference to the laws of holy church. But no such statute existing, he\nmust have referred to the common law in the sense of a _lex non scripta_.\nWhenever, then, the term _common law_ is used in either of these senses,\nand it is never employed in any other, it is readily known in which of\nthem, by the context and subject matter under consideration; which, in\nthe present case, leave no room for doubt.\n\nI do not remember the occasion which led me to take up this subject,\nwhile a practitioner of the law. But I know I went into it with all the\nresearch which a very copious law library enabled me to indulge; and I\nfear not for the accuracy of any of my quotations. The doctrine might be\ndisproved by many other and different topics of reasoning; but having\nsatisfied myself of the origin of the forgery, and found how, like a\nrolling snow-ball, it had gathered volume, I leave its further pursuit\nto those who need further proof, and perhaps I have already gone further\nthan the feeble doubt you expressed might require.\n\nI salute you with great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO ----.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 22, 1824.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The proposition to remove William and Mary College to\nRichmond with all its present funds, and to add to it a musical school,\nis nothing more nor less than to remove the University also to that\nplace. Because, if both remain, there will not be students enough to\nmake either worthy the acceptance of men of the first order of science.\nThey must each fall down to the level of our present academies, under\nthe direction of common teachers, and our state of education must stand\nexactly where it now is. Few of the States have been able to maintain\none university, none two. Surely the legislature, after such an expense\nincurred for a real university, and just as it is prepared to go into\naction under hopeful auspices, will not consent to destroy it by this\nside-wind. As to the best course to be taken with William and Mary, I\nam not so good a judge as our colleagues on the spot. They have under\ntheir eyes the workings of the enemies of the University, masked and\nunmasked, and the intrigues of Richmond, which, after failing to obtain\nit in the first instance, endeavors to steal its location at this late\nhour. And they can best see what measures are most likely to counteract\nthese insidious designs. On the question of the removal, I think our\nparticular friends had better take no active part, but vote silently\nfor or against it, according to their own judgment as to the public\nutility; and if they divide on the question, so much the better perhaps.\nI am glad the visitors and professors have invoked the interference of\nthe legislature, because it is an acknowledgment of its authority on\nbehalf of the State to superintend and control it, of which I never had\na doubt. It is an institution established for the public good, and not\nfor the personal emolument of the professors, endowed from the public\nlands and organized by the executive functionary whose legal office it\nwas. The acquiescence of both corporations under the authority of the\nlegislature, removes what might otherwise have been a difficulty with\nsome. If the question of removal be decided affirmatively, the next is,\nhow shall their funds be disposed of most advantageously for the State\nin general? These are about one hundred thousand dollars too much for a\nsecondary or local institution. The giving a part of them to a school at\nWinchester, and part to Hampden Sidney, is well, as far as it goes; but\ndoes not go far enough. Why should not every part of the State participate\nequally of the benefit of this reversion of right which accrues to the\nwhole equally? This would be no more a violation of law than the giving\nit to a few. Yon know that the Rockfish report proposed an intermediate\ngrade of schools between the primary and the university. In that report\nthe objects of the middle schools are stated. See page 10 of the copy\nI now enclose you. In these schools should be taught Latin and Greek,\nto a good degree, French also, numerical arithmetic, the elements of\ngeometry, surveying, navigation, geography, the use of the globes, the\noutlines of the solar system, and elements of natural philosophy. Two\nprofessors would suffice for these, to wit: one for languages, the other\nfor so much of mathematics and natural philosophy as is here proposed.\nThis degree of education would be adapted to the circumstances of a very\ngreat number of our citizens, who, being intended for lives of business,\nwould not aim at an university education. It would give us a body of\nyeomanry, too, of substantial information, well prepared to become a firm\nand steady support to the government; as schools of ancient languages,\ntoo, they would be preparatories for the University.\n\nYou have now an happy opportunity of carrying this intermediate\nestablishment into execution without laying a cent of tax on the\npeople, or taking one from the treasury. Divide the State into college\ndistricts of about eighty miles square each. There would be about eight\nsuch districts below the Alleghany, and two beyond it, which would\nbe necessarily of larger extent because of the sparseness of their\npopulation. The only advance these colleges would call for, would be\nfor a dwelling house for the teacher, of about one thousand two hundred\ndollars cost, and a boarding house with four or five bed rooms, and a\nschool room for probably about twenty or thirty boys. The whole should not\ncost more than five thousand dollars, but the funds of William and Mary\nwould enable you to give them ten thousand dollars each. The districts\nmight be so laid off that the principal towns and the academies now\nexisting might form convenient sites for their colleges; as, for example,\nWilliamsburgh, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Hampden Sidney, Lynchburg or\nLexington, Staunton, Winchester, &c. Thus, of William and Mary, you\nwill make ten colleges, each as useful as she over was, leaving one in\nWilliamsburg by itself, placing as good a one within a day's ride of\nevery man in the State, and get our whole scheme of education completely\nestablished.\n\nI have said that no advance is necessary but for the erection of the\nbuildings for these schools. Because the boys sent to them would be\nexclusively of a class of parents in competent circumstances to pay\nteachers for the education of their own children. The ten thousand\ndollars given to each, would afford a surplus to maintain by its interest\none or two persons duly selected for their genius, from the primary\nschools, of those too poor to proceed farther of their own means. You\nwill remember that of the three bills I originally gave you, one was\nfor these district colleges, and going into the necessary details. Will\nyou not have every member in favor of this proposition, except those who\nare for gobbling up the whole funds themselves? The present professors\nmight all be employed in the college of Richmond or Williamsburg, or any\nother they would prefer, with reasonable salaries in the meantime, until\nthe system should get under way. This occasion of completing our system\nof education is a God-send which ought not to pass away neglected. Many\nmay be startled at the first idea. But reflection on the justice and\nadvantage of the measure will produce converts daily and hourly to it.\nI certainly would not propose that the University should claim a cent\nof these funds in competition with the district colleges.\n\nWould it not be better to say nothing about the last donation of fifty\nthousand dollars, and endeavor to get the money from Congress, and to\npress for it immediately. I cannot doubt their allowing it, and it would\nbe much better to get it from them than to revive the displeasure of\nour own legislature.\n\nYou are aware that we have yet two professors to appoint, to wit: of\nnatural history and moral philosophy, and that we have no time to lose.\nI propose that such of our colleagues as are of the legislature, should\nname a day of meeting, convenient to themselves, and give notice of it\nby mail to Mr. Madison, General Cocke, and myself. But it should not be\ntill the arrival of the three professors expected at Norfolk. On their\narrival only can we publish the day of opening. Our Richmond mail-stage\narrives here on Sunday and departs on Wednesday, and arrives again on\nThursday and departs on Sunday. Each affording two spare intervening\ndays, and requiring from here an absence of six days.\n\nMr. Long, professor of ancient languages, is located in his apartments\nat the University. He drew, by lot, pavilion No. 5. He appears to\nbe a most amiable man, of fine understanding, well qualified for his\ndepartment, and acquiring esteem as fast as he becomes known. Indeed,\nI have great hope that the whole selection will fulfil our wishes. Ever\nand affectionately yours.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 8, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--It is long since I have written to you. This proceeds from the\ndifficulty of writing with my crippled wrist, and from an unwillingness\nto add to your inconveniences of either reading by the eyes, or writing\nby the hands of others. The account I receive of your physical situation\nafflicts me sincerely; but if body or mind was one of them to give way,\nit is a great comfort that it is the mind which remains whole, and that\nits vigor, and that of memory continues firm. Your hearing, too, is\ngood, as I am told. In this you have the advantage of me. The dulness\nof mine makes me lose much of the conversation of the world, and much\na stranger to what is passing in it. Acquiescence is the only pillow,\nalthough not always a soft one. I have had one advantage of you. This\nPresidential election has given me few anxieties. With you this must have\nbeen impossible, independently of the question, whether we are at last\nto end our days under a civil or a military government. I am comforted\nand protected from other solicitudes by the cares of our University. In\nsome departments of science we believe Europe to be in advance before\nus, and that it would advance ourselves were we to draw from thence\ninstructors in these branches, and thus to improve our science, as we\nhave done our manufactures, by borrowed skill. I have been much squibbed\nfor this, perhaps by disappointed applicants for professorships, to which\nthey were deemed incompetent. We wait only the arrival of three of the\nprofessors engaged in England, to open our University.\n\nI have lately been reading the most extraordinary of all books, and at\nthe same time the most demonstrative by numerous and unequivocal facts.\nIt is Flourens's experiments on the functions of the nervous system,\nin vertebrated animals. He takes out the cerebrum completely, leaving\nthe cerebellum and other parts of the system uninjured. The animal\nloses all its senses of hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting,\nis totally deprived of will, intelligence, memory, perception, &c. Yet\nlives for months in perfect health, with all its powers of motion, but\nwithout moving but on external excitement, starving even on a pile of\ngrain, unless crammed down its throat; in short, in a state of the most\nabsolute stupidity. He takes the cerebellum out of others, leaving the\ncerebrum untouched. The animal retains all its senses, faculties, and\nunderstanding, but loses the power of regulated motion, and exhibits all\nthe symptoms of drunkenness. While he makes incisions in the cerebrum\nand cerebellum, lengthwise and crosswise, which heal and get well, a\npuncture in the medulla elongata is instant death; and many other most\ninteresting things too long for a letter. Cabanis had proved by the\nanatomical structure of certain portions of the human frame, that they\nmight be capable of receiving from the hand of the Creator the faculty of\nthinking; Flourens proves that they have received it; that the cerebrum\nis the thinking organ; and that life and health may continue, and the\nanimal be entirely without thought, if deprived of that organ. I wish\nto see what the spiritualists will say to this. Whether in this state\nthe soul remains in the body, deprived of its essence of thought? or\nwhether it leaves it, as in death, and where it goes? His memoirs and\nexperiments have been reported on with approbation by a committee of\nthe institute, composed of Cuvier, Bertholet, Dumaril, Portal and Pinel.\nBut all this, you and I shall know better when we meet again, in another\nplace, and at no distant period. In the meantime, that the revived powers\nof your frame, and the anodyne of philosophy may preserve you from all\nsuffering, is my sincere and affectionate prayer.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM SHORT, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 8, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I returned the first volume of Hall by a mail of a week ago,\nand by this, shall return the second. We have kept them long, but every\nmember of the family wished to read his book, in which case, you know,\nit had a long gauntlet to run. It is impossible to read thoroughly such\nwritings as those of Harper and Otis, who take a page to say what requires\nbut a sentence, or rather, who give you whole pages of what is nothing\nto the purpose. A cursory race over the ground is as much as they can\nclaim. It is easy for them, at this day, to endeavor to whitewash their\nparty, when the greater part are dead of those who witnessed what passed,\nothers old and become indifferent to the subject, and others indisposed\nto take the trouble of answering them. As to Otis, his attempt is to\nprove that the sun does not shine at mid-day; that that is not a fact\nwhich every one saw. He merits no notice. It is well known that Harper\nhad little scruple about facts where detection was not obvious. By\nplacing in false lights whatever admits it, and passing over in silence\nwhat does not, a plausible aspect may be presented of anything. He takes\ngreat pains to prove, for instance, that Hamilton was no monarchist, by\nexaggerating his own intimacy with him, and the impossibility, if he was\nso, that he should not, at some time, have betrayed it to him. This may\npass with uninformed readers, but not with those who have had it from\nHamilton's own mouth. I am one of those, and but one of many. At my own\ntable, in presence of Mr. Adams, Knox, Randolph, and myself, in a dispute\nbetween Mr. Adams and himself, he avowed his preference of monarchy over\nevery other government, and his opinion that the English was the most\nperfect model of government ever devised by the wit of man, Mr. Adams\nagreeing \"if its corruptions were done away.\" While Hamilton insisted\nthat \"with these corruptions it was perfect, and without them it would\nbe an impracticable government.\" Can any one read Mr. Adams' defence of\nthe American constitutions without seeing that he was a monarchist? And\nJ. Q. Adams, the son, was more explicit than the father, in his answer\nto Paine's rights of man. So much for leaders. Their followers were\ndivided. Some went the same lengths, others, and I believe the greater\npart, only wished a stronger Executive. When I arrived at New York in\n1790, to take a part in the administration, being fresh from the French\nrevolution, while in its first and pure stage, and consequently somewhat\nwhetted up in my own republican principles, I found a state of things,\nin the general society of the place, which I could not have supposed\npossible. Being a stranger there, I was feasted from table to table,\nat large set dinners, the parties generally from twenty to thirty. The\nrevolution I had left, and that we had just gone through in the recent\nchange of our own government, being the common topics of conversation, I\nwas astonished to find the general prevalence of monarchical sentiments,\ninsomuch that in maintaining those of republicanism, I had always the\nwhole company on my hands, never scarcely finding among them a single\nco-advocate in that argument, unless some old member of Congress happened\nto be present. The furthest that any one would go, in support of the\nrepublican features of our new government, would be to say, \"the present\nconstitution is well as a beginning, and may be allowed a fair trial;\nbut it is, in fact, only a stepping stone to something better.\" Among\ntheir writers, Denny, the editor of the Portfolio, who was a kind of\noracle with them, and styled the Addison of America, openly avowed his\npreference of monarchy over all other forms of government, prided himself\non the avowal, and maintained it by argument freely and without reserve,\nin his publications. I do not, myself, know that the Essex junto of\nBoston were monarchists, but I have always heard it so said, and never\ndoubted.\n\nThese, my dear Sir, are but detached items from a great mass of proofs\nthen fully before the public. They are unknown to you, because you were\nabsent in Europe, and they are now disavowed by the party. But, had it\nnot been for the firm and determined stand then made by a counter-party,\nno man can say what our government would have been at this day. Monarchy,\nto be sure, is now defeated, and they wish it should be forgotten that\nit was ever advocated. They see that it is desperate, and treat its\nimputation to them as a calumny; and I verily believe that none of them\nhave it now in direct aim. Yet the spirit is not done away. The same\nparty takes now what they deem the next best ground, the consolidation\nof the government; the giving to the federal member of the government,\nby unlimited constructions of the constitution, a control over all the\nfunctions of the States, and the concentration of all power ultimately\nat Washington.\n\nThe true history of that conflict of parties will never be in possession\nof the public, until, by the death of the actors in it, the hoards of\ntheir letters shall be broken up and given to the world. I should not\nfear to appeal to those of Harper himself, if he has kept copies of\nthem, for abundant proof that he was himself a monarchist. I shall not\nlive to see these unrevealed proofs, nor probably you; for time will be\nrequisite. But time will, in the end, produce the truth. And, after all,\nit is but a truth which exists in every country, where not suppressed\nby the rod of despotism. Men, according to their constitutions, and the\ncircumstances in which they are placed, differ honestly in opinion. Some\nare whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are\ntories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to\ntransfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider\nthe people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they\ncherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the\nexercise of which they are competent. This is the division of sentiment\nnow existing in the United States. It is the common division of whig\nand tory, or according to our denominations of republican and federal;\nand is the most salutary of all divisions, and ought, therefore, to be\nfostered, instead of being amalgamated. For, take away this, and some\nmore dangerous principle of division will take its place. But there is\nreally no amalgamation. The parties exist now as heretofore. The one,\nindeed, has thrown off its old name, and has not yet assumed a new one,\nalthough obviously consolidationists. And among those in the offices of\nevery denomination I believe it to be a bare minority.\n\nI have gone into these facts to show how one-sided a view of this case\nHarper has presented. I do not recall these recollections with pleasure,\nbut rather wish to forget them, nor did I ever permit them to affect\nsocial intercourse. And now, least of all, am disposed to do so. Peace\nand good will with all mankind is my sincere wish. I willingly leave\nto the present generation to conduct their affairs as they please. And\nin my general affection to the whole human family, and my particular\ndevotion to my friends, be assured of the high and special estimation\nin which yourself is cordially held.\n\n\nTO JOSEPH C. CABELL.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 11, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--We are dreadfully nonplussed here by the non-arrival of our\nthree Professors. We apprehend that the idea of our opening on the 1st\nof February prevails so much abroad, (although we have always mentioned\nit doubtfully,) as that the students will assemble on that day without\nawaiting the further notice which was promised. To send them away will\nbe discouraging, and to open an University without Mathematics or Natural\nPhilosophy would bring on us ridicule and disgrace. We therefore publish\nan advertisement, stating that on _the arrival_ of these Professors,\nnotice will be given of the day of opening the institution.\n\nGovernor Barbour writes me hopefully of getting our fifty thousand\ndollars from Congress. The proposition has been originated in the House\nof Representatives, referred to the committee of claims, the chairman\nof which has prepared a very favorable report, and a bill conformable,\nassuming the repayment of all interest which the State has actually paid.\nThe legislature will certainly owe to us the recovery of this money;\nfor had they not given it in some measure the reverenced character of a\ndonation for the promotion of learning, it would never have been paid. It\nis to be hoped, therefore, that the displeasure incurred by wringing it\nfrom them at the last session, will now give way to a contrary feeling,\nand even place us on a ground of some merit. Should this sentiment take\nplace, and the arrival of our Professors, and filling our dormitories\nwith students on the 1st of February, encourage them to look more\nfavorably towards us, perhaps it might dispose them to enlarge somewhat\ntheir order on the same fund. You observe the Proctor has stated in\na letter accompanying our Report, that it will take about twenty-five\nthousand dollars more than we have to finish the Rotunda. Besides this,\nan Anatomical theatre (costing about as much as one of our hotels, say\nabout five thousand dollars,) is indispensable to the school of Anatomy.\nThere cannot be a single dissection until a proper theatre is prepared,\ngiving an advantageous view of the operation to those within, and\neffectually excluding observation from without. Either the additional\nsums, therefore, of twenty-five thousand and five thousand dollars will\nbe wanting, or we must be permitted to appropriate a part of the fifty\nthousand to a theatre, leaving the Rotunda unfinished for the present.\nYet I should think neither of these objects an equivalent for renewing\nthe displeasure of the legislature. Unless we can carry their hearty\npatronage with us, the institution can never flourish. I would not,\ntherefore, hint at this additional aid, unless it were agreeable to our\nfriends generally, and tolerably sure of being carried without irritation.\n\nIn your letter of December the 31st, you say my \"hand-writing and my\nletters have great effect there,\" _i. e._ at Richmond. I am sensible, my\ndear Sir, of the kindness with which this encouragement is held up to me.\nBut my views of their effect are very different. When I retired from the\nadministration of public affairs, I thought I saw some evidence that I\nretired with a good degree of public favor, and that my conduct in office\nhad been considered, by the one party at least, with approbation, and\nwith acquiescence by the other. But the attempt in which I have embarked\nso earnestly, to procure an improvement in the moral condition of my\nnative State, although, perhaps, in other States it may have strengthened\ngood dispositions, it has assuredly weakened them within our own. The\nattempt ran foul of so many local interests, of so many personal views,\nand so much ignorance, and I have been considered as so particularly\nits promoter, that I see evidently a great change of sentiment towards\nmyself. I cannot doubt its having dissatisfied with myself a respectable\nminority, if not a majority of the House of Delegates. I feel it deeply,\nand very discouragingly. Yet I shall not give way. I have ever found in\nmy progress through life, that, acting for the public, if we do always\nwhat is right, the approbation denied in the beginning will surely follow\nus in the end. It is from posterity we are to expect remuneration for\nthe sacrifices we are making for their service, of time, quiet and good\nwill. And I fear not the appeal. The multitude of fine young men whom\nwe shall redeem from ignorance, who will feel that they owe to us the\nelevation of mind, of character and station they will be able to attain\nfrom the result of our efforts, will insure their remembering us with\ngratitude. We will not, then, be \"weary in well-doing.\" _Usque ad aras\namicus tuus._\n\n\nTO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 17, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of\nthe Apocalypse, with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in\nthe last of which you request that, so soon as I shall be of opinion that\nthe explanation you have given is correct, I would express it in a letter\nto you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me, because I make it\nan invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications\nin any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for\ncriticism than myself, and least and last of all should I undertake to\ncriticize works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years\nsince I read it, and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a\nmaniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences\nof our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in\nyour first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of\nSt. John, but of Cerinthus, a century after the death of that apostle.\nYet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of\nthe composition; and come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far\nrespect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events,\npast or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance\nany suite of rational ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how\nimpossible I think it that either your explanation, or that of any man\nin \"the heavens above, or on the earth beneath,\" can be a correct one.\nWhat has no meaning admits no explanation; and pardon me if I say, with\nthe candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your\nunderstanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You\nwill perceive, I hope, also, that I do not consider them as revelations\nof the Supreme Being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute\nto him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms\nwhich, he would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they\nwere addressed. In the candor of these observations, I hope you will\nsee proofs of the confidence, esteem and respect which I truly entertain\nfor you.\n\n\nJOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n QUINCY, January 23, 1825.\n\nMY DEAR SIR,--We think ourselves possessed, or at least we boast that we\nare so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free\ninquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from\nthese exalted privileges in fact. There exists, I believe, throughout\nthe whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny, or\nto doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New\nTestaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it\nis punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England\nitself, it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker.\nIn America it is not much better; even in our Massachusetts, which,\nI believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious\nzeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the\nlast century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but\nsubstituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemies upon any\nbook of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer\nmust surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any\narguments for investigation into the divine authority of those books?\nWho would run the risk of translating Volney's Recherches Nouvelles?\nWho would run the risk of translating Dapin's? But I cannot enlarge\nupon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a\ngreat embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human\nmind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be\nestablished as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons\nappear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that\nsome few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but\nas long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an\nawkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were\nrepealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand\nit, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever; but\nit has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which, I think, will not\nbear examination, and they ought to be separated. Adieu.\n\n\nTO ----.[17]\n\n MONTICELLO, February 3, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Although our Professors were, on the 5th of December, still\nin an English port, that they were safe raises me from the dead, for\nI was almost ready to give up the ship. That was eight weeks ago; they\nmay therefore be daily expected.\n\nIn most public seminaries text-books are prescribed to each of the several\nschools, as the _norma docendi_ in that school; and this is generally\ndone by authority of the trustees. I should not propose this generally\nin our University, because I believe none of us are so much at the\nheights of science in the several branches, as to undertake this, and\ntherefore that it will be better left to the Professors until occasion\nof interference shall be given. But there is one branch in which we are\nthe best judges, in which heresies may be taught, of so interesting a\ncharacter to our own State and to the United States, as to make it a\nduty in us to lay down the principles which are to be taught. It is\nthat of government. Mr. Gilmer being withdrawn, we know not who his\nsuccessor may be. He may be a Richmond lawyer, or one of that school of\nquondam federalism, now consolidation. It is our duty to guard against\nsuch principles being disseminated among our youth, and the diffusion\nof that poison, by a previous prescription of the texts to be followed\nin their discourses. I therefore enclose you a resolution which I think\nof proposing at our next meeting, strictly confiding it to your own\nknowledge alone, and to that of Mr. Loyall, to whom you may communicate\nit, as I am sure it will harmonize with his principles. I wish it kept\nto ourselves, because I have always found that the less such things are\nspoken of beforehand, the less obstruction is contrived to be thrown in\ntheir way. I have communicated it to Mr. Madison.\n\nShould the bill for district colleges pass in the end, our scheme of\neducation will be complete. But the branch of primary schools may need\nattention, and should be brought, like the rest, to the forum of the\nlegislature. The Governor, in his annual message, gives a favorable\naccount of them in the lump. But this is not sufficient. We should know\nthe operation of the law establishing these schools more in detail. We\nshould know how much money is furnished to each county every year, and\nhow much education it distributes every year, and such a statement should\nbe laid before the legislature every year. The sum of education rendered\nin each county in each year should be estimated by adding together the\nnumber of months which each scholar attended, and stating the sum total\nof the months which all of them together attended, _e. g._, in any county\none scholar attended two months, three others four months each, eight\nothers six months each, then the sum of these added together will make\nsixty-two months of schooling afforded in the county that year; and the\nnumber of sixty-two months entered in a table opposite to the name of\nthe county, gives a satisfactory idea of the sum or quantum of education\nit rendered in that year. This will enable us to take many interesting\nand important views of the sufficiency of the plan established, and of\nthe amendments necessary to produce the greatest effect. I enclose a\nform of the table which would be required, in which you will of course\nbe sensible that the numbers entered are at hap-hazard, and _exempli\ngratia_, as I know nothing of the sums furnished or quantum of education\nrendered in each or any county. I send also the form of such a resolution\nas should be passed by the one or the other house, perhaps better in the\nlower one, and moved by some member nowise connected with us, for the\nless we appear before the house, the less we shall excite dissatisfaction.\n\nI mentioned to you formerly our want of an anatomical hall for dissection.\nBut if we get the fifty thousand dollars from Congress, we can charge\nto that, as the library fund, the six thousand dollars of the building\nfund which we have advanced for it in books and apparatus, and repaying\nfrom the former the six thousand dollars due to the latter, apply so\nmuch of it as is necessary for the anatomical building. No application\non the subject need therefore be made to our legislature. But I hear\nnothing of our prospects before Congress. Yours affectionately.\n\n_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to have prepared and laid\nbefore the legislature, at their next session, a statement in detail of\nthe sum of education which, under the law establishing primary schools,\nhas been rendered in the schools of each county respectively; that it be\nstated in a tabular form, in the first column of which table shall be\nthe names of the counties alphabetically arranged, and then, for every\nyear, two other columns, in the first of which shall be entered, opposite\nto the name of each county, the sum of money furnished it in that year,\nand in the second shall be stated the sum of education rendered in the\nsame county and year; which sum is to be estimated by adding together\nthe number of months of schooling which the several individuals attending\nreceived. And that henceforward a similar statement be prepared and laid\nbefore the legislature every year for that year.\n\n Accomac $400 216 months schooling.\n Albemarle 500 234 \"\n Amelia 250 183 \"\n Amherst 400 210 \"\n Augusta 800 461 \"\n &c.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [17] Address lost.\n\n\nTO ----.[18]\n\n MONTICELLO, February 20, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I thank you for the copy of your Cherokee grammar, which\nI have gone over with attention and satisfaction. We generally learn\nlanguages for the benefit of reading the books written in them. But here\nour reward must be the addition made to the philosophy of language. In\nthis point of view your analysis of the Cherokee adds valuable matter for\nreflection, and strengthens our desire to see more of these languages as\nscientifically elucidated. Their grammatical devices for the modification\nof their words by a syllable prefixed to, or inserted in the middle,\nor added to its end, and by other combinations so different from ours,\nprove that if man came from one stock, his languages did not. A late\ngrammarian has said that all words were originally monosyllables. The\nIndian languages disprove this. I should conjecture that the Cherokees,\nfor example, have formed their language not by single words, but by\nphrases. I have known some children learn to speak, not by a word at\na time, but by whole phrases. Thus the Cherokee has no name for father\nin the abstract, but only as combined with some one of his relations. A\ncomplex idea being a fasciculus of simple ideas bundled together, it is\nrare that different languages make up their bundles alike, and hence the\ndifficulty of translating from one language to another. European nations\nhave so long had intercourse with one another, as to have approximated\ntheir complex expressions much towards one another. But I believe we shall\nfind it impossible to translate our language into any of the Indian, or\nany of theirs into ours. I hope you will pursue your undertaking, and\nthat others will follow your example with other of their languages. It\nwill open a wide field for reflection on the grammatical organization\nof languages, their structure and character. I am persuaded that among\nthe tribes on our two continents a great number of languages, radically\ndifferent, will be found. It will be curious to consider how so many so\nradically different will be found. It will be curious to consider how so\nmany so radically different have been preserved by such small tribes in\ncoterminous settlements of moderate extent. I had once collected about\nthirty vocabularies formed of the same English words, expressive of\nsuch simple objects only as must be present and familiar to every one\nunder these circumstances. They wore unfortunately lost. But I remember\nthat on a trial to arrange them into families or dialects, I found in\none instance that about half a dozen might be so classed, in another\nperhaps three or four. Bot I am sure that a third at least, if not more,\nwere perfectly insulation from each other. Yet this is the only index\nby which we can trace their filiation.\n\nI had received your observations on the changes proposed in Harvard\nCollege, without knowing from whom they came to me, and had been so\nmuch pleased with them as to have put them by for preservation. These\nobservations, with the report and documents to which they relate, are\na treasure of information to us; they give to our infant institution\nthe experience of your ancient and eminent establishment. I hope that\nwe shall be like cordial colleagues in office, acting in harmony and\naffection for the same object. Our European professors, five in number,\nare at length arrived, and excite strong presumptions that they have\nbeen judiciously selected. We have announced our opening on the 7th of\nthe ensuing month of March. With sincere wishes for the prosperity of\nyours, as well as ours, I pray you to accept assurances of my high esteem\nand respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [18] Address lost.\n\n\nTO THOMAS JEFFERSON SMITH.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 21, 1825.\n\nThis letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be\nin the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and\nexcellent father has requested that I would address to you something\nwhich might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you\nhave to run, and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course.\nFew words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part. Adore\nGod. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself,\nand your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at\nthe ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered,\nbe the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. And if to the dead\nit is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of\nyour life will be under my regard. Farewell.\n\n_The portrait of a good man by the most sublime of poets, for your\nimitation._\n\n Lord, who's the happy man that may to thy blest courts repair;\n Not stranger-like to visit them, but to inhabit there?\n 'Tis he whose every thought and deed by rules of virtue moves;\n Whose generous tongue disdains to speak the thing his heart disproves.\n Who never did a slander forge, his neighbor's fame to wound;\n Nor hearken to a false report, by malice whispered round.\n Who vice in all its pomp and power, can treat with just neglect;\n And piety, though clothed in rage, religiously respect.\n Who to his plighted vows and trust has ever firmly stood;\n And though he promise to his loss, he makes his promise good.\n Whose soul in usury disdains his treasure to employ;\n Whom no rewards can ever bribe the guiltless to destroy.\n The man, who, by this steady course, has happiness insur'd,\n When earth's foundations shake, shall stand, by Providence secur'd.\n\n _A Decalogue of Canons for observation in practical life._\n\n1. Never put off till to-morrow what you can do to-day.\n\n2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself.\n\n3. Never spend your money before you have it.\n\n4. Never buy what you do not want, because it is cheap; it will be dear\nto you.\n\n5. Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst and cold.\n\n6. We never repent of having eaten too little.\n\n7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.\n\n8. How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened.\n\n9. Take things always by their smooth handle.\n\n10. When angry, count ten, before you speak; if very angry, an hundred.\n\n\nTO EDWARD LIVINGSTON, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 25, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I know how apt we are to consider those whom we knew long ago,\nand have not since seen, to be exactly still what they were when we knew\nthem; and to have been stationary in body and mind as they have been in\nour recollections. Have you not been under that illusion with respect to\nmyself? When I had the pleasure of being a fellow-laborer with you in\nthe public service, age had ripened, but not yet impaired whatever of\nmind I had at any time possessed. But five-and-twenty chilling winters\nhave since rolled over my head, and whitened every hair of it. Worn down\nby time in bodily strength, unable to walk even into my garden without\ntoo much fatigue, I cannot doubt that the mind has also suffered its\nportion of decay. If reason and experience had not taught me this law\nof nature, my own consciousness is a sufficient monitor, and warns me\nto keep in mind the golden precept of Horace,\n\n \"Solve senescentem, matur\u00e9 sanus, equum, ne\n Peccet ad extremum ridendus.\"\n\nI am not equal, dear Sir, to the task you have proposed to me. To examine\na code of laws newly reduced to system and text, to weigh their bearings\non each other in all their parts, their harmony with reason and nature,\nand their adaptation to the habits and sentiments of those for whom\nthey are prepared, and whom, in this case, I do not know, is a task far\nabove what I am now, or perhaps ever was. I have attended to so much\nof your work as has been heretofore laid before the public, and have\nlooked, with some attention also, into what you have now sent me. It will\ncertainly arrange your name with the sages of antiquity. Time and changes\nin the condition and constitution of society may require occasional\nand corresponding modifications. One single object, if your provision\nattains it, will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that\nof restraining judges from usurping legislation. And with no body of men\nis this restraint more wanting than with the judges of what is commonly\ncalled our general government, but what I call our foreign department.\nThey are practising on the constitution by inferences, analogies, and\nsophisms, as they would on an ordinary law. They do not seem aware\nthat it is not even a _constitution_, formed by a single authority,\nand subject to a single superintendence and control; but that it is a\ncompact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims\nan equal right to understand it, and to require its observance. However\nstrong the cord of compact may be, there is a point of tension at which\nit will break. A few such doctrinal decisions, as barefaced as that of\nthe Cohens, happening to bear immediately on two or three of the large\nStates, may induce them to join in arresting the march of government,\nand in arousing the co-States to pay some attention to what is passing,\nto bring back the compact to its original principles, or to modify it\nlegitimately by the express consent of the parties themselves, and not\nby the usurpation of their created agents. They imagine they can lead\nus into a consolidate government, while their road leads directly to\nits dissolution. This member of the government was at first considered\nas the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved\nthat the power of declaring what the law is, _ad libitum_, by sapping and\nmining, slily, and without alarm, the foundations of the constitution,\ncan do what open force would not dare to attempt. I have not observed\nwhether, in your code, you have provided against caucussing judicial\ndecisions, and for requiring judges to give their opinions _seriatim_,\nevery man for himself, with his reasons and authorities at large, to\nbe entered of record in his own words. A regard for reputation, and the\njudgment of the world, may sometimes be felt where conscience is dormant,\nor indolence inexcitable. Experience has proved that impeachment in our\nforms is completely inefficient.\n\nI am pleased with the style and diction of your laws. Plain and\nintelligible as the ordinary writings of common sense, I hope it will\nproduce imitation. Of all the countries on earth of which I have any\nknowledge, the style of the Acts of the British parliament is the most\nbarbarous, uncouth, and unintelligible. It can be understood by those\nalone who are in the daily habit of studying such tautologous, involved\nand parenthetical jargon. Where they found their model, I know not.\nNeither ancient nor modern codes, nor even their own early statutes,\nfurnish any such example. And, like faithful apes, we copy it faithfully.\n\nIn declining the undertaking you so flatteringly propose to me, I trust\nyou will see but an approvable caution for the age of four score and two,\nto avoid exposing itself before the public. The misfortune of a weakened\nmind is an insensibility of its weakness. Seven years ago, indeed, I\nembarked in an enterprise, the establishment of an University, which\nplaced and keeps me still under the public eye. The call was imperious,\nthe necessity most urgent, and the hazard of titubation less, by those\nseven years, than it now is. The institution is at length happily advanced\nto completion, and has commenced under auspices as favorable as I could\nexpect. I hope it will prove a blessing to my own State, and not unuseful\nperhaps to some others. At all hazards, and secured by the aid of my able\ncoadjutors, I shall continue, while I am in being, to contribute to it\nwhatever my weakened and weakening powers can. But assuredly it is the\nlast object for which I shall obtrude myself on the public observation.\n\nWishing anxiously that your great work may obtain complete success, and\nbecome an example for the imitation and improvement of other States, I\npray you to be assured of my unabated friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO JUDGE AUGUSTUS B. WOODWARD.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 3, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of March 25th has been duly received. The fact\nis unquestionable, that the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of\nVirginia, were drawn originally by George Mason, one of our really great\nmen, and of the first order of greatness. The history of the Preamble\nto the latter is this: I was then at Philadelphia with Congress; and\nknowing that the Convention of Virginia was engaged in forming a plan of\ngovernment, I turned my mind to the same subject, and drew a sketch or\noutline of a Constitution, with a preamble, which I sent to Mr. Pendleton,\npresident of the convention, on the mere possibility that it might\nsuggest something worth incorporation into that before the convention.\nHe informed me afterwards by letter, that he received it on the day on\nwhich the Committee of the Whole had reported to the House the plan they\nhad agreed to; that that had been so long in hand, so disputed inch by\ninch, and the subject of so much altercation and debate; that they were\nworried with the contentions it had produced, and could not from mere\nlassitude, have been induced to open the instrument again; but that,\nbeing pleased with the Preamble to mine, they adopted it in the House,\nby way of amendment to the Report of the Committee; and thus my Preamble\nbecame tacked to the work of George Mason. The Constitution, with the\nPreamble, was passed on the 29th of June, and the Committee of Congress\nhad only the day before that reported to that body the draught of the\nDeclaration of Independence. The fact is, that that Preamble was prior\nin composition to the Declaration; and both having the same object, of\njustifying our separation from Great Britain, they used necessarily the\nsame materials of justification, and hence their similitude.\n\nWithdrawn by age from all other public services and attentions to public\nthings, I am closing the last scenes of life by fashioning and fostering\nan establishment for the instruction of those who are to come after us.\nI hope its influence on their virtue, freedom, fame and happiness, will\nbe salutary and permanent. The form and distributions of its structure\nare original and unique, the architecture chaste and classical, and the\nwhole well worthy of attracting the curiosity of a visit. Should it so\nprove to yourself at any time, it will be a great gratification to me\nto see you once more at Monticello; and I pray you to be assured of my\ncontinued and high respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO HENRY LEE, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 8, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,-- * * * * *\n\nThat George Mason was author of the bill of rights, and of the\nconstitution founded on it, the evidence of the day established fully\nin my mind. Of the paper you mention, purporting to be instructions to\nthe Virginia delegation in Congress, I have no recollection. If it were\nanything more than a project of some private hand, that is to say, had\nany such instructions been ever given by the convention, they would\nappear in the journals, which we possess entire. But with respect to\nour rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those\nrights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American\nwhigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort\nto arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed\nproper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of\nIndependence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never\nbefore thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said\nbefore: but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject,\nin terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify\nourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither\naiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any\nparticular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of\nthe American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and\nspirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the\nharmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in\nletters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as\nAristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. The historical documents which you\nmention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded\nyou will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced\nin that Declaration. Be pleased to accept assurances of my great esteem\nand respect.\n\n\nTO MISS WRIGHT.\n\n MONTICELLO, August 7, 1825.\n\nI have duly received; dear Madam, your letter of July 26th, and learn\nfrom it with much regret, that Miss Wright, your sister, is so much\nindisposed as to be obliged to visit our medicinal springs. I wish she\nmay be fortunate in finding those which may be adapted to her case. We\nhave taken too little pains to ascertain the properties of our different\nmineral waters, the cases in which they are respectively remedial, the\nproper process in their use, and other circumstances necessary to give\nus their full value. My own health is very low, not having been able\nto leave the house for three months, and suffering much at times. In\nthis state of body and mind, your letter could not have found a more\ninefficient counsellor, one scarcely able to think or to write. At the\nage of eighty-two, with one foot in the grave, and the other uplifted to\nfollow it, I do not permit myself to take part in any new enterprises,\neven for bettering the condition of man, not even in the great one which\nis the subject of your letter, and which has been through life that\nof my greatest anxieties. The march of events has not been such as to\nrender its completion practicable within the limits of time allotted to\nme; and I leave its accomplishment as the work of another generation.\nAnd I am cheered when I see that on which it is devolved, taking it up\nwith so much good will, and such minds engaged in its encouragement. The\nabolition of the evil is not impossible; it ought never therefore to be\ndespaired of. Every plan should be adopted, every experiment tried, which\nmay do something towards the ultimate object. That which you propose\nis well worthy of trial. It has succeeded with certain portions of our\nwhite brethren, under the care of a Rapp and an Owen; and why may it\nnot succeed with the man of color? An opinion is hazarded by some, but\nproved by none, that moral urgencies are not sufficient to induce him\nto labor; that nothing can do this but physical coercion. But this is a\nproblem which the present age alone is prepared to solve by experiment.\nIt would be a solecism to suppose a race of animals created, without\nsufficient foresight and energy to preserve their own existence. It is\ndisproved, too, by the fact that they exist, and have existed through\nall the ages of history. We are not sufficiently acquainted with all the\nnations of Africa, to say that there may not be some in which habits of\nindustry are established, and the arts practised which are necessary to\nrender life comfortable. The experiment now in progress in St. Domingo,\nthose of Sierra Leone and Cape Mesurado, are but beginning. Your\nproposition has its aspects of promise also; and should it not answer\nfully to calculations in figures, it may yet, in its developments, lead\nto happy results. These, however, I must leave to another generation.\nThe enterprise of a different, but yet important character, in which I\nhave embarked too late in life, I find more than sufficient to occupy\nthe enfeebled energies remaining to me, and that to divert them to other\nobjects, would be a desertion of these. You are young, dear Madam, and\nhave powers of mind which may do much in exciting others in this arduous\ntask. I am confident they will be so exerted, and I pray to heaven for\ntheir success, and that you may be rewarded with the blessings which\nsuch efforts merit.\n\n\nTO JOHN VAUGHAN, ESQ.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 16, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am not able to give you any particular account of the\npaper handed you by Mr. Lee, as being either the original or a copy\nof the Declaration of Independence, sent by myself to his grandfather.\nThe draught, when completed by myself, with a few verbal amendments by\nDr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, two members of the committee, in their own\nhand-writing, is now in my own possession, and a fair copy of this was\nreported to the committee, passed by them without amendment, and then\nreported to Congress. This letter should be among the records of the old\nCongress; and whether this or the one from which it was copied and now in\nmy hands, is to be called the original, is a question of definition. To\nthat in my hands, if worth preserving, my relations with our University\ngives irresistible claims. Whenever, in the course of the composition,\na copy became overcharged, and difficult to be read with amendments, I\ncopied it fair, and when that also was crowded with other amendments,\nanother fair copy was made, &c. These rough draughts I sent to distant\nfriends who were anxious to know what was passing. But how many, and\nto whom, I do not recollect. One sent to Mazzei was given by him to the\nCountess de Tessie (aunt of Madame de Lafayette) _as the original_, and\nis probably now in the hands of her family. Whether the paper sent to R.\nH. Lee was one of these, or whether, after the passage of the instrument,\nI made a copy for him, with the amendments of Congress, may, I think,\nbe known from the face of the paper. The documents Mr. Lee has given\nyou must be of great value, and until all these private hoards are made\npublic, the real history of the revolution will not be known.\n\n\nTO DR. JAMES MEASE.\n\n MONTICELLO, September 26, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--It is not for me to estimate the importance of the\ncircumstances concerning which your letter of the 8th makes inquiry.\nThey prove, even in their minuteness, the sacred attachments of our\nfellow citizens to the event of which the paper of July 4th, 1776, was\nbut the declaration, the genuine effusion of the soul of our country at\nthat time. Small things may, perhaps, like the relics of saints, help to\nnourish our devotion to this holy bond of our Union, and keep it longer\nalive and warm in our affections. This effect may give importance to\ncircumstances, however small. At the time of writing that instrument,\nI lodged in the house of a Mr. Graaf, a new brick house, three stories\nhigh, of which I rented the second floor consisting of a parlor and\nbed-room, ready furnished. In that parlor I wrote habitually, and in it\nwrote this paper, particularly. So far I state from written proofs in\nmy possession. The proprietor, Graaf, was a young man, son of a German,\nand then newly married. I think he was a bricklayer, and that his house\nwas on the south side of Market street, probably between Seventh and\nEighth streets, and if not the only house on that part of the street,\nI am sure there were few others near it. I have some idea that it was a\ncorner house, but no other recollections throwing light on the question,\nor worth communication. I am ill, therefore only add assurance of my\ngreat respect and esteem.\n\n\nTO ----.\n\n MONTICELLO, October 25, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I know not whether the professors to whom ancient and modern\nhistory are assigned in the University, have yet decided on the course\nof historical reading which they will recommend to their schools.\nIf they have, I wish this letter to be considered as not written, as\ntheir course, the result of mature consideration, will be preferable to\nanything I could recommend. Under this uncertainty, and the rather as\nyou are of neither of these schools, I may hazard some general ideas,\nto be corrected by what they may recommend hereafter.\n\nIn all cases I prefer original authors to compilers. For a course of\nancient history, therefore, of Greece and Rome especially, I should advise\nthe usual suite of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Diodorus, Livy, C\u00e6sar,\nSuetonius, Tacitus, and Dion, in their originals if understood, and in\ntranslations if not. For its continuation to the final destruction of\nthe empire we must then be content with Gibbons, a compiler, and with\nSegur, for a judicious recapitulation of the whole. After this general\ncourse, there are a number of particular histories filling up the chasms,\nwhich may be read at leisure in the progress of life. Such is Arrian, 2\nCurtius, Polybius, Sallust, Plutarch, Dionysius, Halicarnassus, Micasi,\n&c. The ancient universal history should be on our shelves as a book of\ngeneral reference, the most learned and most faithful perhaps that ever\nwas written. Its style is very plain but perspicuous.\n\nIn modern history, there are but two nations with whose course it is\ninteresting to us to be intimately acquainted, to wit: France and England.\nFor the former, Millot's General History of France may be sufficient to\nthe period when 1 Davila commences. He should be followed by Perefixe,\nSully, Voltaire's Louis XIV. and XV., la Cretelles XVIII.me si\u00e8cle,\nMarmontel's Regence, Foulongion's French Revolution, and Madame de\nStael's, making up by a succession of particular history, the general\none which they want.\n\nOf England there is as yet no general history so faithful as Rapin's.\nHe maybe followed by Ludlow, Fox, Belsham, Hume and Brodie. Hume's,\nwere it faithful, would be the finest piece of history which has ever\nbeen written by man. Its unfortunate bias may be partly ascribed to\nthe accident of his having written backwards. His maiden work was the\nHistory of the Stuarts. It was a first essay to try his strength before\nthe public. And whether as a Scotchman he had really a partiality for\nthat family, or thought that the lower their degradation, the more fame\nhe should acquire by raising them up to some favor, the object of his\nwork was an apology for them. He spared nothing, therefore, to wash them\nwhite, and to palliate their misgovernment. For this purpose he suppressed\ntruths, advanced falsehoods, forged authorities, and falsified records.\nAll this is proved on him unanswerably by Brodie. But so bewitching was\nhis style and manner, that his readers were unwilling to doubt anything,\nswallowed everything, and all England became tories by the magic of his\nart. His pen revolutionized the public sentiment of that country more\ncompletely than the standing armies could ever have done, which were so\nmuch dreaded and deprecated by the patriots of that day.\n\nHaving succeeded so eminently in the acquisition of fortune and fame by\nthis work, he undertook the history of the two preceding dynasties, the\nPlantagenets and Tudors. It was all-important in this second work, to\nmaintain the thesis of the first, that \"it was the people who encroached\non the sovereign, not the sovereign who usurped on the rights of the\npeople.\" And, again, chapter 53d, \"the grievances under which the English\nlabored [to wit: whipping, pillorying, cropping, imprisoning, fining,\n&c.,] when considered in themselves, without regard to the constitution,\nscarcely deserve the name, nor were they either burthensome on the\npeople's properties, or anywise shocking to the natural humanity of\nmankind.\" During the constant wars, civil and foreign, which prevailed\nwhile these two families occupied the throne, it was not difficult to\nfind abundant instances of practices the most despotic, as are wont\nto occur in times of violence. To make this second epoch support the\nthird, therefore, required but a little garbling of authorities. And\nit then remained, by a third work, to make of the whole a complete\nhistory of England, on the principles on which he had advocated that of\nthe Stuarts. This would comprehend the Saxon and Norman conquests, the\nformer exhibiting the genuine form and political principles of the people\nconstituting the nation, and founded in the rights of man; the latter\nbuilt on conquest and physical force, not at all affecting moral rights,\nnor even assented to by the free will of the vanquished. The battle of\nHastings, indeed, was lost, but the natural rights of the nation were\nnot staked on the event of a single battle. Their will to recover the\nSaxon constitution continued unabated, and was at the bottom of all the\nunsuccessful insurrections which succeeded in subsequent times. The\nvictors and vanquished continued in a state of living hostility, and\nthe nation may still say, after losing the battle of Hastings,\n\n \"What though the field is lost?\n All is not lost; the unconquerable will\n And study of revenge, immortal hate\n And courage never to submit or yield.\"\n\nThe government of a nation may be usurped by the forcible intrusion of\nan individual into the throne. But to conquer its will, so as to rest the\nright on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and\ncessation of all opposition. The whig historians of England, therefore,\nhave always gone back to the Saxon period for the true principles of\ntheir constitution, while the tories and Hume, their Coryph\u00e6us, date it\nfrom the Norman conquest, and hence conclude that the continual claim\nby the nation of the good old Saxon laws, and the struggles to recover\nthem, were \"encroachments of the people on the crown, and not usurpations\nof the crown on the people.\" Hume, with Brodie, should be the last\nhistories of England to be read. If first read, Hume makes an English\ntory, from whence it is an easy step to American toryism. But there is\na history, by Baxter, in which, abridging somewhat by leaving out some\nentire incidents as less interesting now than when Hume wrote, he has\ngiven the rest in the identical words of Hume, except that when he comes\nto a fact falsified, he states it truly, and when to a suppression of\ntruth, he supplies it, never otherwise changing a word. It is, in fact,\nan editic expurgation of Hume. Those who shrink from the volume of Rapin,\nmay read this first, and from this lay a first foundation in a basis of\ntruth.\n\nFor modern continental history, a very general idea may be first aimed\nat, leaving for future and occasional reading the particular histories of\nsuch countries as may excite curiosity at the time. This may be obtained\nfrom Mollet's Northern Antiquities, Vol. Esprit et M\u0153urs des Nations,\nMillot's Modern History, Russel's Modern Europe, Hallam's Middle Ages,\nand Robertson's Charles V.\n\nYou ask what book I would recommend to be first read in law. I am very\nglad to find from a conversation with Mr. Gilmer, that he considers\nCoke Littleton, as methodized by Thomas, as unquestionably the best\nelementary work, and the one which will be the text book of his school.\nIt is now as agreeable reading as Blackstone, and much more profound. I\npray you to consider this hasty and imperfect sketch as intended merely\nto prove my wish to be useful to you, and that with it you will accept\nthe assurance of my esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO THE HONORABLE J. EVELYN DENISON, M. P.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 9, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of July 30th was duly received, and we have now\nat hand the books you have been so kind as to send to our University.\nThey are truly acceptable in themselves, for we might have been years\nnot knowing of their existence; but give the greater pleasure as\nevidence of the interest you have taken in our infant institution. It\nis going on as successfully as we could have expected; and I have no\nreason to regret the measure taken of procuring Professors from abroad\nwhere science is so much ahead of us. You witnessed some of the puny\nsquibs of which I was the butt on that account. They were probably\nfrom disappointed candidates, whose unworthiness had occasioned their\napplications to be passed over. The measure has been generally approved\nin the South and West; and by all liberal minds in the North. It has\nbeen peculiarly fortunate, too, that the Professors brought from abroad\nwere as happy selections as could have been hoped, as well for their\nqualifications in science as correctness and amiableness of character.\nI think the example will be followed, and that it cannot fail to be one\nof the efficacious means of promoting that cordial good will, which it\nis so much the interest of both nations to cherish. These teachers can\nnever utter an unfriendly sentiment towards their native country; and\nthose into whom their instructions will be infused, are not of ordinary\nsignificance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to\nthe government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its\nfriendships and fortunes. As it is our interest to receive instruction\nthrough this channel, so I think it is yours to furnish it; for these\ntwo nations holding cordially together, have nothing to fear from the\nunited world. They will be the models for regenerating the condition of\nman, the sources from which representative government is to flow over\nthe whole earth.\n\nI learn from you with great pleasure, that a taste is reviving in\nEngland for the recovery of the Anglo-Saxon dialect of our language;\nfor a mere dialect it is, as much as those of Piers Plowman, Gower,\nDouglas, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspeare, Milton, for even much of Milton\nis already antiquated. The Anglo-Saxon is only the earliest we possess\nof the many shades of mutation by which the language has tapered down\nto its modern form. Vocabularies we need for each of these stages from\nSomner to Bailey, but not grammars for each or any of them. The grammar\nhas changed so little, in the descent from the earliest, to the present\nform, that a little observation suffices to understand its variations. We\nare greatly indebted to the worthies who have preserved the Anglo-Saxon\nform, from Doctor Hickes down to Mr. Bosworth. Had they not given to the\npublic what we possess through the press, that dialect would by this\ntime have been irrecoverably lost. I think it, however, a misfortune\nthat they have endeavored to give it too much of a learned form, to\nmount it on all the scaffolding of the Greek and Latin, to load it with\ntheir genders, numbers, cases, declensions, conjugations, &c. Strip it\nof these embarrassments, vest it in the Roman type which we have adopted\ninstead of our English black letter, reform its uncouth orthography,\nand assimilate its pronunciation, as much as may be, to the present\nEnglish, just as we do in reading Piers Plowman or Chaucer, and with the\ncotemporary vocabulary for the few lost words, we understand it as we do\nthem. For example, the Anglo-Saxon text of the Lord's prayer, as given\nus 6th Matthew, ix., is spelt and written thus, in the equivalent Roman\ntype: \"Faeder ure thee the eart in heafenum, si thin nama ychalgod. To\nbecume thin rice. Gerrurthe thin willa on eartham, swa swa on heofenum.\nUme doeghw amli can hlaf syle us to d\u0153g. And forgyfus ure gyltas, swa swa\nwe forgifath urum gyltendum. And ne ge-l\u0153dde thu us on costnunge, ae alys\nus of yfele.\" I should spell and pronounce thus: \"Father our, thou tha\nart in heavenum, si thine name y-hallowed. Come thin ric-y-wurth thine\nwill on eartham, so so on heavenum: ourn daynhamlican loaf sell us to-day,\nand forgive us our guilts so so we forgiveth ourum guiltendum. And no\ny-lead thou us on costnunge, ac a-lease us of evil.\" And here it is to\nbe observed by-the-bye, that there is but the single word \"temptation\"\nin our present version of this prayer that is not Anglo-Saxon; for the\nword \"trespasses\" taken from the French, (\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in the original)\nmight as well have been translated by the Anglo-Saxon \"guilts.\"\n\nThe learned apparatus in which Dr. Hickes and his successors have muffled\nour Anglo-Saxon, is what has frightened us from encountering it. The\nsimplification I propose may, on the contrary, make it a regular part\nof our common English education.\n\nSo little reading and writing was there among our Anglo-Saxon ancestors\nof that day, that they had no fixed orthography. To produce a given sound,\nevery one jumbled the letters together, according to his unlettered notion\nof their power, and all jumbled them differently, just as would be done\nat this day, were a dozen peasants, who have learnt the alphabet, but\nhave never read, desired to write the Lord's prayer. Hence the varied\nmodes of spelling by which the Anglo-Saxons meant to express the same\nsound. The word _many_, for example, was spelt in twenty different ways;\nyet we cannot suppose they were twenty different words, or that they\nhad twenty different ways of pronouncing the same word. The Anglo-Saxon\northography, then, is not an exact representation of the sounds meant to\nbe conveyed. We must drop in pronunciation the superfluous consonants,\nand give to the remaining letters their present English sound; because,\nnot knowing the true one, the present enunciation is as likely to be\nright as any other, and indeed more so, and facilitates the acquisition\nof the language.\n\nIt is much to be wished that the publication of the present county\ndialects of England should go on. It will restore to us our language\nin all its shades of variation. It will incorporate into the present\none all the riches of our ancient dialects; and what a store this will\nbe, may be seen by running the eye over the county glossaries, and\nobserving the words we have lost by abandonment and disuse, which in\nsound and sense are inferior to nothing we have retained. When these\nlocal vocabularies are published and digested together into a single\none, it is probable we shall find that there is not a word in Shakspeare\nwhich is not now in use in some of the counties in England, from whence\nwe may obtain its true sense. And what an exchange will their recovery\nbe for the volumes of idle commentaries and conjectures with which that\ndivine poet has been masked and metamorphosed. We shall find in him new\nsublimities which we had never tasted before, and find beauties in our\nancient poets which are lost to us now. It is not that I am merely an\nenthusiast for Pal\u00e6ology. I set equal value on the beautiful engraftments\nwe have borrowed from Greece and Rome, and I am equally a friend to the\nencouragement of a judicious neology: a language cannot be too rich.\nThe more copious, the more susceptible of embellishment it will become.\nThere are several things wanting to promote this improvement. To reprint\nthe Saxon books in modern type; reform their orthography; publish in the\nsame way the treasures still existing in manuscript. And, more than all\nthings, we want, a dictionary on the plan of Stephens or Scapula, in\nwhich the Saxon root, placed alphabetically, shall be followed by all\nits cognate modifications of nouns, verbs, &c., whether Anglo-Saxon, or\nfound in the dialects of subsequent ages. We want, too, an elaborate\nhistory of the English language. In time our country may be able to\nco-operate with you in these labors, of common advantage, but as yet\nit is too much a blank, calling for other and more pressing attentions.\nWe have too much to do in the improvements of which it is susceptible,\nand which are deemed more immediately useful. Literature is not yet a\ndistinct profession with us. Now and then a strong mind arises, and at\nits intervals of leisure from business, emits a flash of light. But the\nfirst object of young societies is bread and covering; science is but\nsecondary and subsequent.\n\nI owe apology for this long letter. It must be found in the circumstance\nof its subject having made an interesting part in the tenor of your\nletter, and in my attachment to it. It is a hobby which too often runs\naway with me where I meant not to give up the rein. Our youth seem\ndisposed to mount it with me, and to begin their course where mine is\nending.\n\nOur family recollects with pleasure the visit with which you favored us;\nand join me in assuring you of our friendly and respectful recollections,\nand of the gratification it will ever be to us to hear of your health\nand welfare.\n\n\nTO MR. LEWIS M. WISS.\n\n MONTICELLO, November 27, 1825.\n\nSIR,--Disqualified by age and ill health from undertaking minute\ninvestigations, I find it will be easier for me to state to you my\nproposition of a lock-dock, for laying up vessels, high and dry, than\nto investigate yours. You will then judge for yourself whether any part\nof mine has anticipated any part of yours.\n\nWhile I was at Washington, in the administration of the government,\nCongress was much divided in opinion on the subject of a navy, a part\nof them wishing to go extensively into preparation of a fleet, another\npart opposed to it, on the objection that the repairs and preservation\nof a ship, even idle in harbor, in ten or twelve years, amount to her\noriginal cost. It has been estimated in England, that if they could\nbe sure of peace a dozen years it would be cheaper for them to burn\ntheir fleet, and build a new one when wanting, than to keep the old one\nin repair during that term. I learnt that, in Venice, there were then\nships, lying on their original stocks, ready for launching at any moment,\nwhich had been so for eighty years, and were still in a state of perfect\npreservation; and that this was effected by disposing of them in docks\npumped dry, and kept so by constant pumping. It occurred to me that this\nexpense of constant pumping might be saved by combining a lock with the\ncommon wet dock, wherever there was a running stream of water, the bed\nof which, within a reasonable distance, was of a sufficient height above\nthe high-water level of the harbor. This was the case at the navy-yard,\non the eastern branch at Washington, the high-water line of which was\nseventy-eight feet lower than the ground on which the Capitol stands,\nand to which it was found that the water of the Tyber creek could be\nbrought for watering the city. My proposition then was as follows: Let\n_a b_ be the high-water level of the harbor, and the vessel to be laid\nup draw eighteen feet water. Make a chamber A twenty feet deep below\nhigh water and twenty feet high above it, as _c d e f_, and at the upper\nend make another chamber, B,\n\n c f\n +----------------------------------------------+\n | . | g\n a b | . B |\n | . |\n ..............|..........A........+--------------------------| h\n | | i\n | |\n d | | e\n +-------------------+\n\nthe bottom of which should be in the high-water level, and the tops twenty\nfeet above that. _g h_ is the water of the Tyber. When the vessel is\nto be introduced, open the gate at _c b a_. The tide water rises in the\nchamber A to the level _b i_, and floats the vessel in with it. Shut the\ngate _c b d_ and open that of _f i_. The water of the Tyber fills both\nchambers to the level _c f g_, and the vessel floats into the chamber\nB; then opening both gates _c b d_ and _f i_, the water flows out, and\nthe vessel settles down on the stays previously prepared at the bottom\n_i h_ to receive her. The gate at _g h_ must of course be closed, and\nthe water of the feeding stream be diverted elsewhere. The chamber B is\nto have a roof over it of the construction of that over the meal market\nat Paris, except that that is hemispherical, this semi-cylindrical. For\nthis construction see Delenne's architecture, whose invention it was.\nThe diameter of the dome of the meal market is considerably over one\nhundred feet.\n\nIt will be seen at once, that instead of making the chamber B of\nsufficient width and length for a single vessel only, it may be widened\nto whatever span the semi-circular framing of the roof can be trusted,\nand to whatever length you please, so as to admit two or more vessels\nin breadth, and as many in length as the localities render expedient.\n\nI had a model of this lock-dock made and exhibited in the President's\nhouse, during the session of Congress at which it was proposed. But the\nadvocates for a navy did not fancy it, and those opposed to the building\nof ships altogether, were equally indisposed to provide protection for\nthem. Ridicule was also resorted to, the ordinary substitute for reason,\nwhen that fails, and the proposition was past over. I then thought and\nstill think the measure wise, to have a proper number of vessels always\nready to be launched, with nothing unfinished about them, except the\nplanting their masts, which must of necessity be omitted, to be brought\nunder a roof. Having no view in this proposition but to combine for the\npublic a provision for defence, with economy in its preservation, I have\nthought no more of it since. And if any of my ideas anticipated yours,\nyou are welcome to appropriate them to yourself, without objection on\nmy part, and, with this assurance, I pray you to accept that of my best\nwishes and respects.\n\n\nTo ----.[19]\n\n MONTICELLO. December 18, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your letters are always welcome, the last more than all others,\nits subject being one of the dearest to my heart. To my grand-daughter\nyour commendations cannot fail to be an object of high ambition, as\na certain passport to the good opinion of the world. If she does not\ncultivate them with assiduity and affection, she will illy fulfil my\nparting injunctions. I trust she will merit a continuance of your favor,\nand find in her new situation the general esteem she so happily possessed\nin the society she left. You tell me she repeated to you an expression\nof mine, that I should be willing to go again over the scenes of past\nlife. I should not be unwilling, without, however, wishing it; and why\nnot? I have enjoyed a greater share of health than falls to the lot of\nmost men; my spirits have never failed me except under those paroxysms\nof grief which you, as well as myself, have experienced in every form,\nand with good health and good spirits, the pleasures surely outweigh the\npains of life. Why not, then, taste them again, fat and lean together?\nWere I indeed permitted to cut off from the train the last seven years,\nthe balance would be much in favor of treading the ground over again.\nBeing at that period in the neighborhood of our warm springs, and well\nin health, I wished to be better, and tried them. They destroyed, in\na great degree, my internal organism, and I have never since had a\nmoment of perfect health. I have now been eight months confined almost\nconstantly to the house, with now and then intervals of a few days on\nwhich I could get on horseback.\n\nI presume you have received a copy of the life of Richard H. Lee, from\nhis grandson of the same name, author of the work. You and I know that\nhe merited much during the revolution. Eloquent, bold, and ever watchful\nat his post, of which his biographer omits no proof. I am not certain\nwhether the friends of George Mason, of Patrick Henry, yourself, and\neven of General Washington, may not reclaim some feathers of the plumage\ngiven him, noble as was his proper and original coat. But on this subject\nI will anticipate your own judgment.\n\nI learn with sincere pleasure that you have experienced lately a great\nrenovation of your health. That it may continue to the ultimate period\nof your wishes is the sincere prayer of _usque ad eras amicissimi tui_.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [19] Address lost.\n\n\nTO JAMES MADISON.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 24, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have for some time considered the question of internal\nimprovement as desperate. The torrent of general opinion sets so\nstrongly in favor of it as to be irresistible. And I suppose that even\nthe opposition in Congress will hereafter be feeble and formal, unless\nsomething can be done which may give a gleam of encouragement to our\nfriends, or alarm their opponents in their fancied security. I learn from\nRichmond that those who think with us there are in a state of perfect\ndismay, not knowing what to do or what to propose. Mr. Gordon, our\nrepresentative, particularly, has written to me in very desponding terms,\nnot disposed to yield indeed, but pressing for opinions and advice on\nthe subject. I have no doubt you are pressed in the same way, and I hope\nyou have devised and recommended something to them. If you have, stop\nhere and read no more, but consider all that follows as _non-avenue_.\nI shall be better satisfied to adopt implicitly anything which you may\nhave advised, than anything occurring to myself. For I have long ceased\nto think on subjects of this kind, and pay little attention to public\nproceedings. But if you have done nothing in it, then I risk for your\nconsideration what has occurred to me, and is expressed in the enclosed\npaper.[20] Bailey's propositions, which came to hand since I wrote the\npaper, and which I suppose to have come from the President himself, show\na little hesitation in the purposes of his party; and in that state of\nmind, a bolt shot critically may decide the contest by its effect on\nthe less bold. The olive branch held out to them at this moment may be\naccepted, and the constitution thus saved at a moderate sacrifice. I say\nnothing of the paper, which will explain itself. The following heads of\nconsideration, or some of them, may weigh in its favor:\n\nIt may intimidate the wavering. It may break the western coalition, by\noffering the same thing in a different form. It will be viewed with favor\nin contrast with the Georgia opposition and fear of strengthening that.\nIt will be an example of a temperate mode of opposition in future and\nsimilar cases. It will delay the measure a year at least. It will give\nus the chance of better times and of intervening accidents; and in no\nway place us in a worse than our present situation. I do not dwell on\nthese topics; your mind will develop them.\n\nThe first question is, whether you approve of doing anything of the kind.\nIf not, send it back to me, and it shall be suppressed; for I would not\nhazard so important a measure against your opinion, nor even without\nits support. If you think it may be a canvass on which to put something\ngood, make what alterations you please, and I will forward it to Gordon,\nunder the most sacred injunctions that it shall be so used as that not a\nshadow of suspicion shall fall on you or myself, that it has come from\neither of us. But what you do, do as promptly as your convenience will\nadmit, lest it should be anticipated by something worse.\n\nEver and affectionately yours.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [20] See under head of \"Miscellaneous Papers,\" the paper\n here alluded to, entitled, \"The solemn Declaration and\n Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles\n of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on\n the violations of them.\"\n\n\nTO WILLIAM B. GILES.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 25, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 15th was received four days ago. It found\nme engaged in what I could not lay aside till this day.\n\nFar advanced in my eighty-third year, worn down with infirmities which\nhave confined me almost entirely to the house for seven or eight months\npast, it afflicts me much to receive appeals to my memory for transactions\nso far back as that which is the subject of your letter. My memory is\nindeed become almost a blank, of which no better proof can probably\nbe given you than by my solemn protestation, that I have not the least\nrecollection of your intervention between Mr. John Q. Adams and myself,\nin what passed on the subject of the embargo. Not the slightest trace\nof it remains in my mind. Yet I have no doubt of the exactitude of the\nstatement in your letter. And the less, as I recollect the interview\nwith Mr. Adams, to which the previous communications which had passed\nbetween him and yourself were probably and naturally the preliminary.\nThat interview I remember well; not indeed in the very words which passed\nbetween us, but in their substance, which was of a character too awful,\ntoo deeply engraved in my mind, and influencing too materially the course\nI had to pursue, ever to be forgotten. Mr. Adams called on me pending\nthe embargo, and while endeavors were making to obtain its repeal. He\nmade some apologies for the call, on the ground of our not being then\nin the habit of confidential communications, but that that which he had\nthen to make, involved too seriously the interest of our country not\nto overrule all other considerations with him, and make it his duty to\nreveal it to myself particularly. I assured him there was no occasion\nfor any apology for his visit; that, on the contrary, his communications\nwould be thankfully received, and would add a confirmation the more to\nmy entire confidence in the rectitude and patriotism of his conduct and\nprinciples. He spoke then of the dissatisfaction of the eastern portion\nof our confederacy with the restraints of the embargo then existing, and\ntheir restlessness under it. That there was nothing which might not be\nattempted, to rid themselves of it. That he had information of the most\nunquestionable certainty, that certain citizens of the eastern States\n(I think he named Massachusetts particularly) were in negotiation with\nagents of the British government, the object of which was an agreement\nthat the New England States should take no further part in the war then\ngoing on; that, without formally declaring their separation from the\nUnion of the States, they should withdraw from all aid and obedience to\nthem; that their navigation and commerce should be free from restraint\nand interruption by the British; that they should be considered and\ntreated by them as neutrals, and as such might conduct themselves towards\nboth parties; and, at the close of the war, be at liberty to rejoin\nthe confederacy. He assured me that there was eminent danger that the\nconvention would take place; that the temptations were such as might\ndebauch many from their fidelity to the Union; and that, to enable its\nfriends to make head against it, the repeal of the embargo was absolutely\nnecessary. I expressed a just sense of the merit of this information, and\nof the importance of the disclosure to the safety and even the salvation\nof our country; and however reluctant I was to abandon the measure,\n(a measure which persevered in a little longer, we had subsequent and\nsatisfactory assurance would have effected its object completely,) from\nthat moment, and influenced by that information, I saw the necessity\nof abandoning it, and instead of effecting our purpose by this peaceful\nweapon, we must fight it out, or break the Union. I then recommended to\nyield to the necessity of a repeal of the embargo, and to endeavor to\nsupply its place by the best substitute, in which they could procure a\ngeneral concurrence.\n\nI cannot too often repeat, that this statement is not pretended to be in\nthe very words which passed; that it only gives faithfully the impression\nremaining on my mind. The very words of a conversation are too transient\nand fugitive to be so long retained in remembrance. But the substance\nwas too important to be forgotten, not only from the revolution of\nmeasures it obliged me to adopt, but also from the renewals of it in\nmy memory on the frequent occasions I have had of doing justice to Mr.\nAdams, by repeating this proof of his fidelity to his country, and of\nhis superiority over all ordinary considerations when the safety of that\nwas brought into question.\n\nWith this best exertion of a waning memory which I can command, accept\nassurances of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect.\n\n\nTO WILLIAM B. GILES.\n\n MONTICELLO, December 26, 1825.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to\nmake what use you please. This will contain matters not intended for the\npublic eye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid\nstrides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing\ntowards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the\nconsolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that\ntoo, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their\npower. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines\nof the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional\ncompact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is\nbut too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are\nin combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of\nthe powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions\nforeign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume\nindefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it\nregulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry,\nand that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the\nother, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post\nroads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of\nroads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words\n\"general welfare,\" a right to do, not only the acts to effect that,\nwhich are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they\nshall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our\nresource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument?\nYou might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling\nthem. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the\ncombination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt\nones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and\nwith majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward\nin defiance. Are we then _to stand to our arms_, with the hot-headed\nGeorgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until\nmuch longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of\nso many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none\ncan ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and\nlonger endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them\ntime for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a\nsituation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our\ncompanions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of\nour Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of\npowers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can\nbe no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to\nnote every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they\noccur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to\nwhich our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments\nor precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil,\nuntil their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go\nstill further, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of\nthe constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication\nbetween the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in\nCongress, (log-rolling, &c.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of\neach State of the moneys so employed, shall be in works within the State,\nor elsewhere with its consent, and with a due _salvo_ of jurisdiction.\nThis is the course which I think safest and best as yet.\n\nYou ask my opinion of the propriety of giving publicity to what is stated\nin your letter, as having passed between Mr. John Q. Adams and yourself.\nOf this no one can judge but yourself. It is one of those questions which\nbelong to the forum of feeling. This alone can decide on the degree of\nconfidence implied in the disclosure; whether under no circumstances\nit was to be communicated to others? It does not seem to be of that\ncharacter, or at all to wear that aspect. They are historical facts which\nbelong to the present, as well as future times. I doubt whether a single\nfact, known to the world, will carry as clear conviction to it, of the\ncorrectness of our knowledge of the treasonable views of the federal\nparty of that day, as that disclosed by this, the most nefarious and\ndaring attempt to dissever the Union, of which the Hartford convention\nwas a subsequent chapter; and both of these having failed, consolidation\nbecomes the fourth chapter of the next book of their history. But this\nopens with a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who,\nhaving nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, now look to\na single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking\ninstitutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of\ntheir favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding\nand ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will\nbe to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and\nperhaps the surest stepping-stone to it.\n\nI learn with great satisfaction that your school is thriving well,\nand that you have at its head a truly classical scholar. He is one\nof three or four whom I can hear of in the State. We were obliged the\nlast year to receive shameful Latinists into the classical school of\nthe University, such as we will certainly refuse as soon as we can get\nfrom better schools a sufficiency of those properly instructed to form\na class. We must get rid of this Connecticut Latin, of this barbarous\nconfusion of long and short syllables, which renders doubtful whether\nwe are listening to a reader of Cherokee, Shawnee, Iroquois, or what.\nOur University has been most fortunate in the five professors procured\nfrom England. A finer selection could not have been made. Besides their\nbeing of a grade of science which has left little superior behind, the\ncorrectness of their moral character, their accommodating dispositions,\nand zeal for the prosperity of the institution, leave us nothing more\nto wish. I verily believe that as high a degree of education can now be\nobtained here, as in the country they left. And a finer set of youths I\nnever saw assembled for instruction. They committed some irregularities\nat first, until they learned the lawful length of their tether; since\nwhich it has never been transgressed in the smallest degree. A great\nproportion of them are severely devoted to study, and I fear not to\nsay that within twelve or fifteen years from this time, a majority of\nthe rulers of our State will have been educated here. They shall carry\nhence the correct principles of our day, and you may count assuredly\nthat they will exhibit their country in a degree of sound respectability\nit has never known, either in our days, or those of our forefathers. I\ncannot live to see it. My joy must only be that of anticipation. But\nthat you may see it in full fruition, is the probable consequence of\nthe twenty years I am ahead of you in time, and is the sincere prayer\nof your affectionate and constant friend.\n\n\nTO CLAIBORNE W. GOOCH.\n\n MONTICELLO, January 9, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I have duly received your favor of December the 31st, and\nfear, with you, all the evils which the present lowering aspect of\nour political horizon so ominously portends. That at some future day,\nwhich I hoped to be very distant, the free principles of our government\nmight change with the change of circumstances was to be expected. But I\ncertainly did not expect that they would not over-live the generation\nwhich established them. And what I still less expected was, that my\nfavorite western country was to be made the instrument of change. I had\never and fondly cherished the interests of that country, relying on it\nas a barrier against the degeneracy of public opinion from our original\nand free principles. But the bait of local interests, artfully prepared\nfor their palate, has decoyed them from their kindred attachments, to\nalliances alien to them. Yet although I have little hope that the torrent\nof consolidation can be withstood, I should not be for giving up the ship\nwithout efforts to save her. She lived well through the first squall,\nand may weather the present one. But, dear Sir, I am not the champion\ncalled for by our present dangers. \"Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus\nistis, tempus eget.\" A waning body, a waning mind, and waning memory,\nwith habitual ill health, warn me to withdraw and relinquish the arena\nto younger and abler athletes. I am sensible myself, if others are not,\nthat this is my duty. If my distant friends know it not, those around\nme can inform them that they should not, in friendship, wish to call\nme into conflicts, exposing only the decays which nature has inscribed\namong her unalterable laws, and injuring the common cause by a senile\nand puny defence.\n\nI will, however, say one word on the subject. The South Carolina\nresolutions, Van Buren's motion, and above all Bayley's propositions,\nshow that other States are coming forward on the subject, and better for\nany one to take the lead than Virginia, where opposition is considered\nas common-place, and a mere matter of form and habit. We shall see what\nour co-States propose, and before the close of the session we may shape\nour own course more understandingly.\n\nAccept the assurance of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTo----.[21]\n\n MONTICELLO, January 21, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--Your favor of January 15th is received, and I am entirely\nsensible of the kindness of the motives which suggested the caution it\nrecommended. But I believe what I have done is the only thing I could\nhave done with honor or conscience. Mr. Giles requested me to state a\nfact which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be possessed. What\nuse he intended to make of it I knew not, nor had I a right to inquire,\nor to indicate any suspicion that he would make an unfair one. That was\nhis concern, not mine, and his character was sufficient to sustain the\nresponsibility for it. I knew, too, that if an uncandid use should be\nmade of it, there would be found those who would so prove it. Independent\nof the terms of intimate friendship in which Mr. Giles and myself have\never lived together, the world's respect entitled him to the justice\nof my testimony to any truth he might call for; and how that testimony\nshould connect me with whatever he may do or write hereafter, and with\nhis whole career, as you apprehend, is not understood by me. With his\npersonal controversies I have nothing to do. I never took any part in\nthem, or in those of any other person. Add to this, that the statement\nI have given him on the subject of Mr. Adams, is entirely honorable to\nhim in every sentiment and fact it contains. There is not a word in it\nwhich I would wish to recall. It is one which Mr. Adams himself might\nwillingly quote, did he need to quote anything. It was simply that during\nthe continuance of the embargo, Mr. Adams informed me of a combination\n(without naming any one concerned in it,) which had for its object a\nseverance of the Union, for a time at least. That Mr. Adams and myself\nnot being then in the habit of mutual consultation and confidence, I\nconsidered it as the stronger proof of the purity of his patriotism, which\nwas able to lift him above all party passions when the safety of his\ncountry was endangered. Nor have I kept this honorable fact to myself.\nDuring the late canvas, particularly, I had more than one occasion to\nquote it to persons who were expressing opinions respecting him, of which\nthis was a direct corrective. I have never entertained for Mr. Adams any\nbut sentiments of esteem and respect; and if we have not thought alike\non political subjects, I yet never doubted the honesty of his opinions,\nof which the letter in question, if published, will be an additional\nproof. Still, I recognize your friendship in suggesting a review of it,\nand am glad of this, as of every other occasion of repeating to you the\nassurance of my constant attachment and respect.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [21] Address lost.\n\n\nTO JAMES MADISON.\n\n MONTICELLO, February 17, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,-- * * * * *\n\nImmediately on seeing the overwhelming vote of the House of\nRepresentatives against giving us another dollar, I rode to the\nUniversity and desired Mr. Brockenbrough to engage in nothing new, to\nstop everything on hand which could be done without, and to employ all\nhis force and funds in finishing the circular room for the hooks, and\nthe anatomical theatre. These cannot be done without: and for these\nand all our debts we have funds enough. But I think it prudent then\nto clear the decks thoroughly, to see how we shall stand, and what we\nmay accomplish further. In the meantime, there have arrived for us in\ndifferent ports of the United States, ten boxes of books from Paris, seven\nfrom London, and from Germany I know not how many; in all, perhaps, about\ntwenty-five boxes. Not one of these can be opened until the book-room\nis completely finished, and all the shelves ready to receive their\ncharge directly from the boxes as they shall be opened. This cannot be\ntill May. I hear nothing definitive of the three thousand dollars duty\nof which we are asking the remission from Congress. In the selection\nof our Law Professor, we must be rigorously attentive to his political\nprinciples. You will recollect that before the revolution, Coke Littleton\nwas the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder whig\nnever wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of\nthe British constitution, or in what were called English liberties.\nYou remember also that our lawyers were then all whigs. But when his\nblack-letter text, and uncouth but cunning learning got out of fashion,\nand the honied Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the students' hornbook,\nfrom that moment, that profession (the nursery of our Congress) began\nto slide into toryism, and nearly all the young brood of lawyers now\nare of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to be whigs, because\nthey no longer know what whigism or republicanism means. It is in our\nseminary that that vestal flame is to be kept alive; it is thence it is\nto spread anew over our own and the sister States. If we are true and\nvigilant in our trust, within a dozen or twenty years a majority of our\nown legislature will be from one school, and many disciples will have\ncarried its doctrines home with them to their several States, and will\nhave leavened thus the whole mass. New York has taken strong ground in\nvindication of the constitution; South Carolina had already done the\nsame. Although I was against our leading, I am equally against omitting\nto follow in the same line, and backing them firmly; and I hope that\nyourself or some other will mark out the track to be pursued by us.\n\nYou will have seen in the newspapers some proceedings in the legislature,\nwhich have cost me much mortification. My own debts had become\nconsiderable, but not beyond the effect of some lopping of property,\nwhich would have been little felt, when our friend * * * * * gave me\nthe _coup de grace_. Ever since that I have been paying twelve hundred\ndollars a year interest on his debt, which, with my own, was absorbing\nso much of my annual income, as that the maintenance of my family was\nmaking deep and rapid inroads on my capital, and had already done it.\nStill, sales at a fair price would leave me competently provided. Had\ncrops and prices for several years been such as to maintain a steady\ncompetition of substantial bidders at market, all would have been safe.\nBut the long succession of years of stunted crops, of reduced prices,\nthe general prostration of the farming business, under levies for the\nsupport of manufacturers, &c., with the calamitous fluctuations of\nvalue in our paper medium, have kept agriculture in a state of abject\ndepression, which has peopled the western States by silently breaking\nup those on the Atlantic, and glutted the land market, while it drew off\nits bidders. In such a state of things, property has lost its character\nof being a resource for debts. Highland in Bedford, which, in the days\nof our plethory, sold readily for from fifty to one hundred dollars\nthe acre, (and such sales were many then,) would not now sell for more\nthan from ten to twenty dollars, or one-quarter or one-fifth of its\nformer price. Reflecting on these things, the practice occurred to me,\nof selling, on fair valuation, and by way of lottery, often resorted to\nbefore the Revolution to effect large sales, and still in constant usage\nin every State for individual as well as corporation purposes. If it\nis permitted in my case, my lands here alone, with the mills, &c., will\npay every thing, and leave me Monticello and a farm free. If refused, I\nmust sell everything here, perhaps considerably in Bedford, move thither\nwith my family, where I have not even a log hut to put my head into, and\nwhether ground for burial, will depend on the depredations which, under\nthe form of sales, shall have been committed on my property. The question\nthen with me was _ultrum horum_? But why afflict you with these details?\nIndeed, I cannot tell, unless pains are lessened by communication with\na friend. The friendship which has subsisted between us, now half a\ncentury, and the harmony of our political principles and pursuits, have\nbeen sources of constant happiness to me through that long period. And\nif I remove beyond the reach of attentions to the University, or beyond\nthe bourne of life itself, as I soon must, it is a comfort to leave that\ninstitution under your care, and an assurance that it will not be wanting.\nIt has also been a great solace to me, to believe that you are engaged\nin vindicating to posterity the course we have pursued for preserving\nto them, in all their purity, the blessings of self-government, which\nwe had assisted too in acquiring for them. If ever the earth has beheld\na system of administration conducted with a single and steadfast eye to\nthe general interest and happiness of those committed to it, one which,\nprotected by truth, can never know reproach, it is that to which our\nlives have been devoted. To myself you have been a pillar of support\nthrough life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall\nleave with you my last affections.\n\n\nTO JOHN ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 25, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--My grandson, Thomas J. Randolph, the bearer of this letter,\nbeing on a visit to Boston, would think he had seen nothing were he to\nleave without seeing you. Although I truly sympathize with you in the\ntrouble these interruptions give, yet I must ask for him permission to\npay to you his personal respects. Like other young people, he wishes to\nbe able in the winter nights of old age, to recount to those around him,\nwhat he has heard and learnt of the heroic age preceding his birth, and\nwhich of the Argonauts individually he was in time to have seen.\n\nIt was the lot of our early years to witness nothing but the dull\nmonotony of a colonial subservience; and of our riper years, to breast\nthe labors and perils of working out of it. Theirs are the Halcyon calms\nsucceeding the storm which our Argosy had so stoutly weathered. Gratify\nhis ambition then, by receiving his best bow; and my solicitude for your\nhealth, by enabling him to bring me a favorable account of it. Mine is\nbut indifferent, but not so my friendship and respect for you.\n\n\nTO JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.\n\n MONTICELLO, March 30, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I am thankful for the very interesting message and documents\nof which you have been so kind as to send me a copy, and will state\nmy recollections as to the particular passage of the message to which\nyou ask my attention. On the conclusion of peace, Congress, sensible\nof their right to assume independence, would not condescend to ask its\nacknowledgment from other nations, yet were willing, by some of the\nordinary international transactions, to receive what would imply that\nacknowledgment. They appointed commissioners, therefore, to propose\ntreaties of commerce to the principal nations of Europe. I was then a\nmember of Congress, was of the committee appointed to prepare instructions\nfor the commissioners, was, as you suppose, the draughtsman of those\nactually agreed to, and was joined with your father and Dr. Franklin,\nto carry them into execution. But the stipulations making part of these\ninstructions, which respected privateering, blockades, contraband, and\nfreedom of the fisheries, were not original conceptions of mine. They had\nbefore been suggested by Dr. Franklin, in some of his papers in possession\nof the public, and had, I think, been recommended in some letter of\nhis to Congress. I happen only to have been the inserter of them in the\nfirst public act which gave the formal sanction of a public authority.\nWe accordingly proposed our treaties, containing these stipulations,\nto the principal governments of Europe. But we were then just emerged\nfrom a subordinate condition; the nations had as yet known nothing of\nus, and had not yet reflected on the relations which it might be their\ninterest to establish with us. Most of them, therefore, listened to our\npropositions with coyness and reserve; old Frederic alone closing with us\nwithout hesitation. The negotiator of Portugal, indeed, signed a treaty\nwith us, which his government did not ratify, and Tuscany was near a\nfinal agreement. Becoming sensible, however, ourselves, that we should\ndo nothing with the greater powers, we thought it better not to hamper\nour country with engagements to those of less significance, and suffered\nour powers to expire without closing any other negotiations. Austria soon\nafter became desirous of a treaty with us, and her ambassador pressed\nit often on me; but our commerce with her being no object, I evaded her\nrepeated invitations. Had these governments been then apprized of the\nstation we should so soon occupy among nations, all, I believe, would\nhave met us promptly and with frankness. These principles would then\nhave been established with all, and from being the conventional law with\nus alone, would have slid into their engagements with one another, and\nbecome general. These are the facts within my recollection. They have\nnot yet got into written history; but their adoption by our southern\nbrethren will bring them into observance, and make them, what they should\nbe, a part of the law of the world, and of the reformation of principles\nfor which they will be indebted to us. I pray you to accept the homage\nof my friendly and high consideration.\n\n\nTO THE HONORABLE EDWARD EVERETT.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 8, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I thank you for the very able and eloquent speech you have been\nso kind as to send me on the amendment of the constitution, proposed by\nMr. McDuffie. I have read it with pleasure and satisfaction, and concur\nwith much of its contents. On the question of the lawfulness of slavery,\nthat is of the right of one man to appropriate to himself the faculties\nof another without his consent, I certainly retain my early opinions.\nOn that, however, of third persons to interfere between the parties,\nand the effect of conventional modifications of that pretension, we are\nprobably nearer together. I think with you, also, that the constitution\nof the United States is a compact of independent nations subject to the\nrules acknowledged in similar cases, as well that of amendment provided\nwithin itself, as, in case of abuse, the justly dreaded hut unavoidable\n_ultimo ratio gentium_. The report on the Panama question mentioned in\nyour letter has as I suppose, got separated by the way. It will probably\ncome by another mail. In some of the letters you have been kind enough to\nwrite me, I have been made to hope the favor of a visit from Washington.\nIt would be received with sincere welcome, and unwillingly relinquished\nif no circumstance should render it inconvenient to yourself. I repeat\nalways with pleasure the assurances of my great esteem and respect.\n\n\nTO DR. EMMETT, PROFESSOR OF NATURAL HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA.\n\n MONTICELLO, April 27, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--It is time to think of the introduction of the school of\nBotany into our institution. Not that I suppose the lectures can be begun\nin the present year, but that we may this year make the preparations\nnecessary for commencing them the next. For that branch, I presume, can\nbe taught advantageously only during the short season while nature is\nin general bloom, say during a certain portion of the months of April\nand May, when, suspending the other branches of your department, that\nof Botany may claim your exclusive attention. Of this, however, you are\nto be the judge, as well as of what I may now propose on the subject of\npreparation. I will do this in writing, while sitting at my table, and\nat ease, because I can rally there, for your consideration, with more\ncomposure than in extempore conversation, my thoughts on what we have\nto do in the present season.\n\nI suppose you were well acquainted, by character, if not personally,\nwith the late Abb\u00e9 Correa, who past some time among us, first as a\ndistinguished savant of Europe, and afterwards as ambassador of Portugal,\nresident with our government. Profoundly learned in several other branches\nof science, he was so, above all others, in that of Botany; in which he\npreferred an amalgamation of the methods of Linn\u00e6us and of Jussieu, to\neither of them exclusively. Our institution being then on hand, in which\nthat was of course to be one of the subjects of instruction, I availed\nmyself of his presence and friendship to obtain from him a general idea\nof the extent of ground we should employ, and the number and character\nof the plants we should introduce into it. He accordingly sketched for me\na mere outline of the scale he would recommend, restrained altogether to\nobjects of use, and indulging not at all in things of mere curiosity, and\nespecially not yet thinking of a hot-house, or even of a green-house. I\nenclose you a copy of his paper, which was the more satisfactory to me,\nas it coincided with the moderate views to which our endowments as yet\nconfine us. I am still the more satisfied, as it seemed to be confirmed by\nyour own way of thinking, as I understood it in our conversation of the\nother day. To your judgment altogether his ideas will be submitted, as\nwell as my own, now to be suggested as to the operations of the present\nyear, preparatory to the commencement of the school in the next.\n\n1. Our first operation must be the selection of a piece of ground of\nproper soil and site, suppose of about six acres, as M. Correa proposes.\nIn choosing this we are to regard the circumstances of soil, water, and\ndistance. I have diligently examined all our grounds with this view,\nand think that that on the public road, at the upper corner of our\npossessions, where the stream issues from them, has more of the requisite\nqualities than any other spot we possess.[22] 170 yards square, taken at\nthat angle, would make the six acres we want. But the angle at the road\nis acute, and the form of the ground will be trapezoid, not square. I\nwould take, therefore, for its breadth, all the ground between the road\nand the dam of the brick ponds, extending eastwardly up the hill, as\nfar and as wide as our quantity would require. The bottom ground would\nsuit for the garden plants; the hill sides for the trees.\n\n2. Operation. Enclose the ground with a serpentine brick wall seven feet\nhigh. This would take about 80,000 bricks, and cost $800, and it must\ndepend on our finances whether they will afford that immediately, or\nallow us, for awhile, but enclosure of posts and rails.\n\n3. Operation. Form all the hill sides into level terrasses of convenient\nbreadth, curving with the hill, and the level ground into beds and alleys.\n\n4. Operation. Make out a list of the plants thought necessary and\nsufficient for botanical purposes, and of the trees we propose to\nintroduce, and take measures in time for procuring them.\n\nAs to the seeds of plants, much may be obtained from the gardeners of our\nown country. I have, moreover, a special resource. For three-and-twenty\nyears of the last twenty-five, my good old friend Thonin, superintendent\nof the garden of plants at Paris, has regularly sent me a box of seeds,\nof such exotics, as to us, as would suit our climate, and containing\nnothing indigenous to our country. These I regularly sent to the public\nand private gardens of the other States, having as yet no employment for\nthem here. But during the last two years this envoi has been intermitted.\nI know not why. I will immediately write and request a re-commencement\nof that kind office, on the ground that we can now employ them ourselves.\nThey can be here in early spring.\n\nThe trees I should propose would be exotics of distinguished usefulness,\nand accommodated to our climate; such as the Larch, Cedar of Libanus,\nCork, Oak, the Maronnier, Mahogany? the Catachu or Indian rubber tree\nof Napul, (30\u00b0) Teak tree, or Indian oak of Burman, (23\u00b0) the various\nwoods of Brazil, &c.\n\nThe seed of the Larch can be obtained from a tree at Monticello. Cones\nof the Cedar of Libanus are in most of our seed shops, but may be had\nfresh from the trees in the English gardens. The Maronnier and Cork-oak,\nI can obtain from France. There is a Maronnier at Mount Vernon, but it is\na seedling, and not therefore select. The others maybe got through the\nmeans of our ministers and consuls in the countries where they grow, or\nfrom the seed shops of England, where they may very possibly be found.\nLastly, a gardener of sufficient skill must be obtained.\n\nThis, dear Sir, is the sum of what occurs to me at present; think of\nit, and let us at once enter on the operations.\n\nAccept my friendly and respectful salutations.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [22] To wit, 19,360 square yards = 4 acres for the garden of plants.\n 9,680 \" \" = 2 acres for the plants of trees.\n ------\n 29,040 square yards = 6 acres in the whole.\n\n\nTO DOCTOR JOHN P. EMMET.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 2, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The difficulties suggested in your favor of the 28th ult.,\nare those which must occur at the commencement of every undertaking. A\nfull view of the subject however will, I think, solve them. In every\nmeditated enterprise, the means we can employ are to be estimated,\nand to these must be proportioned our expectations of effect. If, for\nexample, to the cultivation of a given field we can devote but one hundred\ndollars, we are not to expect the product which $1,000 would extract\nfrom it. Applying this principle to the present subject of education,\nfrom a revenue of $15,000, and with eight Professors, we cannot expect to\nobtain that grade of instruction to our youth, which 15,000 guineas and\nthirty or forty instructors would give. Reviewing, then, the branches of\nscience in which we wish our youth to obtain some instruction, we must\ndistribute them into so many groups as we can employ Professors, and\nas equally too as practicable. We must take into account also the time\nwhich our youths can generally afford to the whole circle of education,\nand proportion the extent of instruction in each branch to the quota\nof that time, and of the Professor's attention which may fall to its\nshare. In the smallest of our academies, two Professors alone can be\nafforded,--one of languages, another of sciences, or of Philosophy, as\nhe is generally styled. The degree of instruction which can be given\nin each branch, at these schools, must be very moderate. Yet there are\nyouths whose means can afford no more, and who nevertheless are glad\neven of that. The most highly endowed of our Seminaries has a revenue of\nperhaps $25,000 or $30,000. They consequently may subdivide the sciences\ninto twelve or fifteen schools, and give a proportionably more minute\ndegree of instruction in each. It has enabled them, for example, to have\nfive or six Professors of Theology. In Europe, some of their literary\ninstitutions can afford to employ twenty, thirty, or forty Professors.\nOur legislature, contemplating their means, took their stand at a revenue\nof $15,000, meant for an establishment of ten Professors, but equal in\nfact to eight only. Accommodating ourselves, therefore, to their views,\nwe had to distribute into eight groups those sciences in which we wished\nour youth should receive instruction, and to content ourselves with\nthe portion which that number could give. On the Professors it would of\ncourse devolve to form their lectures on such a scale of extension only,\nas to give to each of the sciences allotted them its due share of their\ntime.\n\nBut another material question is, what is the whole term of time which\nthe students can give to the whole course of instruction? I should say\nthat three years should be allowed to general education, and two, or\nrather three, to the particular profession for which they are destined.\nWe receive our students at the age of sixteen, expected to be previously\nso far qualified in the languages, ancient and modern, as that one year\nin our schools shall suffice for their last polish. A student then with\nus may give his first year here to languages and Mathematics; his second\nto Mathematics and Physics; his third to Physics and Chemistry, with\nthe other objects of that school. I particularize this distribution\nmerely for illustration, and not as that which either is, or perhaps\nought to be established. This would ascribe one year to Languages, two\nto Mathematics, two to Physics, and one to Chemistry and its associates.\nLet us see next how the items of your school may be accommodated to\nthis scale; but by way of illustration only, as before. The allotments\nto your school are Botany, Zoology, Mineralogy, Chemistry, Geology and\nRural Economy. This last, however, need not be considered as a distinct\nbranch, but as one which may be sufficiently treated by seasonable\nalliances with the kindred subjects of Chemistry, Botany and Zoology.\nSuppose then you give twelve dozen lectures a year; say two dozen to\nBotany and Zoology, two dozen to Mineralogy and Geology, and eight dozen\nto Chemistry. Or I should think that Mineralogy, Geology and Chemistry\nmight be advantageously blended in the same course. Then your year would\nbe formed into two grand divisions; one-third to Botany and Zoology, and\ntwo-thirds to Chemistry and its associates, Mineralogy and Geology. To\nthe last, indeed, I would give the least possible time. To learn, as far\nas observation has informed us, the ordinary arrangement of the different\nstrata of minerals in the earth, to know from their habitual collocations\nand proximities, where we find one mineral, whether another, for which we\nare seeking, may be expected to be in its neighborhood, is useful. But\nthe dreams about the modes of creation, inquiries whether our globe has\nbeen formed by the agency of fire or water, how many millions of years\nit has cost Vulcan or Neptune to produce what the fiat of the Creator\nwould effect by a single act of will, is too idle to be worth a single\nhour of any man's life. You will say that two-thirds of a year, or any\nbetter estimated partition of it, can give but an inadequate knowledge\nof the whole science of Chemistry. But consider that we do not expect\nour schools to turn out their alumni already enthroned on the pinnacles\nof their respective sciences; but only so far advanced in each as to be\nable to pursue them by themselves, and to become Newtons and La Places\nby energies and perseverances to be continued through life. I have said\nthat our original plan comprehended ten Professors, and we hope to be\nable ere long to supply the other two. One should relieve the Medical\nProfessor from Anatomy and Surgery, and a school for the other would be\nmade up of the surcharges of yours, and that of Physics.\n\nFrom these views of the subject, dear Sir, your only difficulty appears\nto be so to proportion the time you can give to the different branches\ncommitted to you, as to bring, within the compass of a year, for example,\nthat degree of instruction in each which the year will afford. This may\nrequire some experience, and continued efforts at condensation. But,\nonce effected, it will place your mind at ease, and give to our country\na result proportioned to the means it furnishes, and which ought to\nsatisfy, and will satisfy, all reasonable men. I am certain it will\nthose to whom the charge and direction of this institution have been\nparticularly confided, and to none assuredly more than to him from whom\nyour doubts have drawn this unauthoritative exposition of the public\nexpectations. And, with this assurance, be pleased to accept that of my\nsincerely friendly esteem and respect.\n\nDEAR SIR,--After sealing the enclosed letter, it occurred to me that\nbeing on a general subject, and one equally applicable to the cases\nof your colleagues, the other Professors, I should wish it to be read\nby them also. It may produce an union of views, and harmony of action,\nwhich may be useful to the Institution. Yours affectionately.\n\n\nTO ----.\n\n MONTICELLO, May 15, 1826.\n\nDEAR SIR,--The sentiments of justice which have dictated your letters\nof the 3d and 9th inst., are worthy of all praise, and merit and meet\nmy thankful acknowledgments. Were your father now living and proposing,\nas you are, to publish a second edition of his memoirs, I am satisfied\nhe would give a very different aspect to the pages of that work which\nrespect Arnold's invasion and surprise of Richmond, in the winter of\n1780-81. He was then, I believe, in South Carolina, too distant from\nthe scene of those transactions to relate them on his own knowledge,\nor even to sift them from the chaff of the rumors then afloat, rumors\nwhich vanished soon before the real truth, as vapors before the sun,\nobliterated by their notoriety, from every candid mind, and by the voice\nof the many who, as actors or spectators knew what had truly past. The\nfacts shall speak for themselves.\n\nGeneral Washington had just given notice to all the Governors on the\nsea-board, north and south, that an embarcation was taking place at\nNew York, destined for the _southward, as was given out there_; and on\nSunday the 31st of December, 1780, we received information that a fleet\nhad entered our capes. It happened fortunately that our legislature\nwas at that moment in session, and within two days of their rising, so\nthat, during these two days, we had the benefit of their presence, and\nof the counsel and information of the members individually. On Monday\nthe 1st of January, we were in suspense as to the destination of this\nfleet, whether up the bay, or up our river. On Tuesday at 10 o'clock,\nhowever, we received information that they had entered James river;\nand, on general advice, we instantly prepared orders for calling in the\nmilitia, one-half from the nearer counties, and a fourth from the more\nremote, which would constitute a force of between four and five thousand\nmen, of which orders the members of the legislature, which adjourned\nthat day, took charge, each to his respective county; and we began the\nremoval of everything from Richmond. The wind being fair and strong, the\nenemy ascended the river as rapidly almost as the expresses could ride,\nwho were dispatched to us from time to time, to notify their progress.\nAt 5 P. M. on Thursday, we learnt that they had then been three hours\nlanded at Westover. The whole militia of the adjacent counties were now\ncalled for, and to come on individually, without waiting any regular\narray. At 1 P. M. the next day, (Friday,) they entered Richmond, and\non Saturday, after twenty-four hours possession, burning some houses,\ndestroying property, &c., they retreated, encamped that evening ten miles\nbelow, and reached their shipping at Westover the next day, (Sunday.)\n\nBy this time had assembled three hundred militia under Colonel Nicholas,\nsix miles above Westover, and two hundred under General Nelson, at\nCharles city Court House, eight miles below. Two or three hundred at\nPetersburg had put themselves under General Smallwood, of Maryland,\naccidentally there on his passage through the State; and Baron Steuben\nwith eight hundred, and Colonel Gibson with one thousand, were also\non the south side of James river, aiming to reach Hood's before the\nenemy should have passed it, where they hoped they could arrest them.\nBut the wind, having shifted, carried them down as prosperously as it\nhad brought them up the river. Within the first five days, therefore,\nabout twenty-five hundred men had collected at three or four different\npoints, ready for junction. I was absent myself from Richmond (but always\nwithin observing distance of the enemy) three days only, during which\nI was never off my horse but to take food or rest, and was everywhere\nwhere my presence could be of any service; and I may with confidence\nchallenge any one to put his finger on the point of time when I was in a\nstate of remissness from any duty of my station. But I was not with the\narmy! true; for first, where was it? second, I was engaged in the more\nimportant function of taking measures to collect an army; and, without\nmilitary education myself, instead of jeopardizing the public safety by\npretending to take its command, of which I knew nothing, I had committed\nit to persons of the art, men who knew how to make the best use of it,\nto Steuben for instance, to Nelson and others, possessing that military\nskill and experience, of which I had none.\n\nLet our condition, too, at that time be duly considered. Without arms,\nwithout money of effect, without a regular soldier in the State, or a\nregular officer, except Steuben, a militia scattered over the country,\nand called at a moment's warning to leave their families and firesides,\nin the dead of winter, to meet an enemy ready marshalled, and prepared\nat all points to receive them. Yet had time been given them by the hasty\nretreat of that enemy, I have no doubt but the rush to arms, and to the\nprotection of their country, would have been as rapid and universal as in\nthe invasion during our late war, when, at the first moment of notice,\nour citizens rose in mass, from every part of the State, and without\nwaiting to be marshalled by their officers, armed themselves, and marched\noff by ones and by twos, as quickly as they could equip themselves.\nOf the individuals of the same house one would start in the morning, a\nsecond at noon, a third in the evening, no one waiting an hour for the\ncompany of another. This I saw myself on the late occasion, and should\nhave seen on the former had wind, and tide, and a Howe, instead of an\nArnold, slackened their pace ever so little.\n\nAnd is the surprise of an open and unarmed place, although called a city,\nand even a capital, so unprecedented as to be a matter of indelible\nreproach? Which of our own capitals during the same war, was not in\npossession of the same enemy, not merely by surprise and for a day only,\nbut permanently? That of Georgia? of South Carolina? North Carolina?\nPennsylvania? New York? Connecticut? Rhode Island? Massachusetts? And\nif others were not, it was because the enemy saw no object in taking\npossession of them. Add to the list in the late war, Washington, the\nmetropolis of the Union, covered by a fort, with troops and a dense\npopulation. And what capital on the continent of Europe, (St. Petersburg\nand its regions of ice excepted,) did not Bonaparte take and hold at\nhis pleasure? Is it then just that Richmond and its authorities alone\nshould be placed under the reproach of history, because, in a moment\nof peculiar denudation of resources, by the _coup de main_ of an enemy,\nled on by the hand of fortune directing the winds and weather to their\nwishes, it was surprised and held for twenty-four hours? Or strange\nthat that enemy with such advantages, should be enabled then to get off,\nwithout risking the honors he had achieved by burnings and destructions\nof property peculiar to his principles of warfare? We, at least, may\nleave these glories to their own trumpet.\n\nDuring this crisis of trial I was left alone, unassisted by the\nco-operation of a single public functionary. For, with the legislature,\nevery member of the council had departed to take care of his own family.\nUnaided even in my bodily labors, but by my horse, and he, exhausted\nat length by fatigue, sunk under me in the public road, where I had to\nleave him, and with my saddle and bridle on my shoulders, to walk afoot\nto the nearest farm, where I borrowed an unbroken colt, and proceeded\nto Manchester, opposite to Richmond, which the enemy had evacuated a\nfew hours before.\n\nWithout further pursuing these minute details, I will here ask the\nfavor of you to turn to Girardin's History of Virginia, where such of\nthem as are worthy the notice of history, are related in that scale of\nextension which its objects admit. That work was written at Milton,\nwithin two or three miles of Monticello; and at the request of the\nauthor, I communicated to him every paper I possessed on the subject,\nof which he made the use he thought proper for his work. [See his pages\n453, 460, and the appendix xi.-xv.] I can assure you of the truth of\nevery fact he has drawn from these papers, and of the genuineness of\nsuch as he has taken the trouble of copying. It happened that during\nthose eight days of incessant labor, for the benefit of my own memory,\nI carefully noted every circumstance worth it. These memorandums were\noften written on horseback, and on scraps of paper taken out of my\npocket at the moment, fortunately preserved to this day, and now lying\nbefore me. I wish you could see them. But my papers of that period are\nstitched together in large masses, and so tattered and tender as not to\nadmit removal further than from their shelves to a reading table. They\nbear an internal evidence of fidelity which must carry conviction to\nevery one who sees them. We have nothing in our neighborhood which could\ncompensate the trouble of a visit to it, unless perhaps our University,\nwhich I believe you have not seen, and I can assure you is worth seeing.\nShould you think so, I would ask as much of your time at Monticello\nas would enable you to examine these papers at your ease. Many others\ntoo are interspersed among them, which have relation to your object,\nmany letters from Generals Gates, Greene, Stephens and others engaged\nin the Southern war, and in the North also. All should be laid open to\nyou without reserve, for there is not a truth existing which I fear, or\nwould wish unknown to the whole world. During the invasions of Arnold,\nPhillips and Cornwallis, until my time of office had expired, I made it\na point, once a week, by letters to the President of Congress, and to\nGeneral Washington, to give them an exact narrative of the transactions\nof the week. These letters should still be in the office of state in\nWashington, and in the presses at Mount Vernon. Or, if the former were\ndestroyed by the conflagrations of the British, the latter are surely\nsafe, and may be appealed to in corroboration of what I have now written.\n\nThere is another transaction, very erroneously stated in the same work,\nwhich although not concerning myself, is within my own knowledge, and I\nthink it a duty to communicate it to you. I am sorry that not being in\npossession of a copy of the memoirs, I am not able to quote the page,\nand still less the facts themselves, verbatim from the text. But of the\nsubstance, as recollected, I am certain. It is said there that, about\nthe time of Tarleton's expedition up the north branch of James river\nto Charlottesville and Monticello, Simcoe was detached up the southern\nbranch, and penetrated as far as New London, in Bedford, where he\ndestroyed a dep\u00f4t of arms, &c., &c. I was with my family, at the time, at\na possession I have within three miles of New London, and I can assure\nyou of my own knowledge that he did not advance to within fifty miles\nof New London. Having reached the lower end of Buckingham, as I have\nunderstood, he heard of a deposit of arms, and a party of new recruits\nunder Baron Steuben, somewhere in Prince Edward; he left the Buckingham\nroad immediately, at or near Francisco's, pushed directly south at this\nnew object, was disappointed, and returned to and down James river to\nhead quarters. I had then returned to Monticello myself, and from thence\nsaw the smokes of his conflagration of houses and property on that river,\nas they successively arose in the horizon at a distance of twenty-five\nor thirty miles. I must repeat that his excursion from Francisco's is\nnot from my own knowledge, but as I have heard it from the inhabitants\non the Buckingham road, which for many years I travelled six or eight\ntimes a year. The particulars of that, therefore, may need inquiry and\ncorrection.\n\nThese are all the recollections within the scope of your request, which\nI can state with precision and certainty; and of these you are free to\nmake what use you think proper in the new edition of your father's work;\nand with which I pray you to accept the assurances of my great esteem\nand respect.\n\n\nTO MR. WEIGHTMAN.\n\n MONTICELLO, June 24, 1826.\n\nRESPECTED SIR,--The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of\nthe citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their\ncelebration on the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one\nof the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the\nfate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the\nhonorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It\nadds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a\npersonal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescence\nis a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to\ncontrol. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged\nthere congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of\nthat host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and\ndoubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission\nor the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that\nour fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity,\ncontinue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I\nbelieve it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to\nall,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish\nignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to\nassume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we\nhave substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of\nreason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the\nrights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already\nlaid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has\nnot been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and\nspurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These\nare grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return\nof this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an\nundiminished devotion to them.\n\nI will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I\nshould have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington and\nits vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social\nintercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the\npublic cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections,\nas never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me\nthe gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself,\nand those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and\nfriendly attachments.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III.\n\nOFFICIAL PAPERS\n\n\n PART I.--REPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY\n OF STATE.\n\n \" II.--INAUGURAL ADDRESSES AND MESSAGES.\n\n \" III.--REPLIES TO PUBLIC ADDRESSES.\n\n \" IV.--INDIAN ADDRESSES.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY TO BOOK III.\n\n\nThis division of the work embraces all the important official papers of\nThomas Jefferson, from the time at which he entered upon the duties of\nthe Secretaryship of State to the end of his Presidential term, with\nthe exception of his official letters, a part of which will be found\nprinted in Book II., devoted to his general correspondence, both official\nand private. It being the wish of the Library committee, under whose\nsupervision this work has been prepared, that it should be compressed\nwithin as few volumes as was consistent with justice to the reputation\nof the author, and the great body of Mr. Jefferson's official letters\nhaving been already published among the American State Papers and Sparks'\nDiplomatic Correspondence, the most interesting and valuable only have\nbeen selected for re-publication in this work, as specimens of the\nauthor's manner in the preparation of such papers. All omitted here will\nbe found in the publications just referred to.\n\nThe official papers embraced in this division of the work, have been\nclassified, for the purposes of easy reference, under the following heads:\n\nPART I.--_Reports and Opinions while Secretary of State._--Under this head\nare included Jefferson's Reports to Congress, which have been published\nbefore; also, his Reports to the President, and his Cabinet Opinions,\nboth of which were private, and are now for the first time given to the\npublic. It seems to have been the practice of Washington, to take the\nwritten opinions of his Secretaries upon important points arising during\nhis administration, and the opinions of Jefferson, here published, were\ngiven in reply to questions propounded and points submitted to him by\nthe President, in conformity with this practice. They relate to a great\nvariety of matters connected with the early history of our government,\nand the principles of interpretation to be applied to the Federal\nConstitution, and will be found interesting and valuable.\n\nPART II.--_Inaugural Address and Messages._--During the administration\nof Washington and Adams, it was the custom of the President, at the\nopening of each session of Congress, to meet both Houses in person, and\ndeliver a written speech, to which, in the course of a few days, each\nHouse would return an answer through a committee appointed to wait upon\nhim, he, at the same time, returning a brief reply. Mr. Jefferson, at\nthe beginning of his Presidential term, changed this system. Instead\nof meeting the Houses of Congress in person, and addressing to them a\nspeech, he sent them a written message, thus substituting messages for\nspeeches. His reasons for this change were the greater convenience of\nmessages over speeches, the economy of time, and the relief of Congress\nfrom the necessity of answering on subjects in regard to which they were\noften very imperfectly informed. The general opinion of the country at\nthe time seems to have approved the change; and the mode of communicating\nwith Congress by messages in preference to speeches, has been invariably\nadopted by the Presidents ever since.\n\nThis division of the work contains Jefferson's Inaugural Address and\nregular and special messages.\n\nPART III.--_Replies to Public Addresses._--The public addresses received\nby Mr. Jefferson, and answered by him, were very numerous. This was\nparticularly the case at the time of the Embargo, the attack on the\nChesapeake, and the termination of his Presidential service. The plan of\nthis work does not admit the publication of the whole of these Addresses\nand Replies; nor, indeed, is there any necessity for it. It is only\nnecessary that a few of the Replies should be published, as specimens of\nthe rest. This has been done, selecting such as have the highest claim,\nand omitting none which possess any historical value.\n\nPART IV.--_Indian Addresses._--There is a number of these Addresses.\nThey possess a certain interest as exhibiting the humane policy of our\ngovernment towards the Indians, our efforts to civilize them, to make\nthem agriculturists, to keep them at peace with ourselves and with each\nother, and the manner in which their lands were acquired from them, always\nby purchase, with their own free consent. Some of the most important\nhave, therefore, been incorporated in the work.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nREPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE.\n\n\nI.--_Report on the methods for obtaining Fresh Water from Salt._\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of\nRepresentatives of the United States, the petition of Jacob Isaacs of\nNewport in Rhode Island, has examined into the truth and importance of\nthe allegations therein set forth, and makes thereon the following report:\n\nThe petitioner sets forth, that by various experiments, with considerable\nlabor and expense, he has discovered a method of converting salt-water\ninto fresh, in the proportion of 8 parts out of 10, by a process so\nsimple that it may be performed on board of vessels at sea by the common\niron caboose, with small alterations, by the same fire, and in the same\ntime, which is used for cooking the ship's provisions, and offers to\nconvey to the government of the United States a faithful account of\nhis art or secret, to be used by, or within the United States, on their\ngiving to him a reward suitable to the importance of the discovery, and\nin the opinion of government, adequate to his expenses and the time he\nhas devoted to the bringing it into effect.\n\nIn order to ascertain the merit of the petitioner's discovery, it becomes\nnecessary to examine the advances already made in the art of converting\nsalt-water into fresh.\n\nLord Bacon, to whom the world is indebted for the first germs of so\nmany branches of science, had observed, that with a heat sufficient for\ndistillation, salt will not rise in vapor, and that salt-water distilled\nis fresh; and it would seem, that all mankind might have observed that\nthe earth is supplied with fresh water chiefly by exhalation from the\nsea, which is, in fact, an insensible distillation effected by the heat\nof the sun; yet this, although the most obvious, was not the first idea\nin the essays for converting salt-water into fresh; filtration was tried\nin vain, and congelation could be resorted to only in the coldest regions\nand seasons. In all the earlier trials by distillation, some mixture was\nthought necessary to aid the operation by a partial precipitation of the\nsalt, and other foreign matters contained in sea-water. Of this kind,\nwere the methods of Sir Richard Hawkins in the sixteenth century, of\nGlauber, Hauton, and Lister, in the seventeenth, and of Hales, Appleby,\nButler, Chapman, Hoffman, and Dore, in the eighteenth; nor was there\nanything in these methods worthy noting on the present occasion, except\nthe very simple still contrived extempore by Captain Chapman, and made\nfrom such materials as are to be found on board every ship, great or\nsmall; this was a common pot, with a wooded lid of the usual form; in\nthe centre of which a hole was bored to receive perpendicularly, a short\nwooden tube made with an inch-and-a-half auger, which perpendicular\ntube received at its top, and at an acute angle, another tube of wood\nalso, which descended until it joined a third of pewter made by rolling\nup a dish and passing it obliquely through a cask of cold water; with\nthis simple machine he obtained two quarts of fresh water an hour, and\nobserved that the expense of fuel would be very trifling, if the still\nwas contrived to stand on the fire along with the ship's boiler.\n\nIn 1762, Doctor Lind, proposing to make experiment of several different\nmixtures, first distilled rain-water, which he supposed would be the\npurest, and then sea-water, without any mixture, which he expected\nwould be the least pure, in order to arrange between these two supposed\nextremes, the degree of merit of the several ingredients he meant to\ntry; \"to his great surprise,\" as he confesses, the sea-water distilled\nwithout any mixture, was as pure as the rain-water; he pursued the\ndiscovery and established the fact, that a pure and potable fresh water\nmay be obtained from salt-water by simple distillation, without the\naid of any mixture for fining or precipitating its foreign contents.\nIn 1767, he proposed an extempore still, which, in fact, was Chapman's,\nonly substituting a gun-barrel instead of Chapman's pewter tube, and the\nhand-pump of the ship to be cut in two obliquely and joined again at an\nacute angle, instead of Chapman's wooden tubes bored expressly; or instead\nof the wooden lid and upright tube, he proposed a tea-kettle (without\nits lid or handle) to be turned bottom upwards over the mouth of the\npot by way of still-head, and a wooden tube leading from the spout to a\ngun-barrel passing through a cask of water, the whole luted with equal\nparts of chalk and meal moistened with salt-water. With this apparatus\nof a pot, tea-kettle, and gun-barrel, the Dolphin, a twenty-gun ship,\nin her voyage around the world in 1768, from 56 gallons of sea-water\nand with 9 lbs. of wood and 69 lbs. of pit-coal made 42 gallons of good\nfresh water, at the rate of 8 gallons an hour. The Dorsetshire, in her\npassage from Gibraltar to Mahon in 1769, made 19 quarts of pure water in\nfour hours with 10 lbs. of wood, and the Slambal in 1773, between Bombay\nand Bengal, with the hand-pump, gun-barrel, and a pot of 6 gallons of\nsea-water, made ten quarts of fresh water in three hours.\n\nIn 1771, Dr. Irvin putting together Lind's idea of distilling without\na mixture, Chapman's still, and Dr. Franklin's method of cooling by\nevaporation, obtained a premium of five thousand pounds from the British\nparliament. He wet his tube constantly with a mop instead of passing\nit through a cask of water; he enlarged its bore also, in order to\ngive a free passage to the vapor, and thereby increase its quantity by\nlessening the resistance or pressure on the evaporating surface. This\nlast improvement was his own; it doubtless contributed to the success\nof his process; and we may suppose the enlargement of the tube to be\nuseful to that point at which the central parts of the vapor passing\nthrough it would begin to escape condensation. Lord Mulgrave used his\nmethod in his voyage towards the north pole in 1773, making from 34 to\n40 gallons of fresh water a day, without any great addition of fuel, as\nhe says.\n\nM. de Bougainville, in his voyage round the world, used very successfully\na still which had been contrived in 1763 by Poyssonier to guard against\nthe water being thrown over from the boiler into the pipe, by the\nagitation of the ship. In this, one singularity was, that the furnace or\nfire-box was in the middle of the boiler, so that the water surrounded\nit in contact. This still, however, was expensive, and occupied much room.\n\nSuch was the advances already made in the art of obtaining fresh from\nsalt-water, when Mr. Isaacs, the petitioner, suggested his discovery. As\nthe merit of this could be ascertained by experiment only, the Secretary\nof State asked the favor of Mr. Rittenhouse, President of the American\nPhilosophical Society, of Dr. Wistar, professor of chemistry in the\ncollege at Philadelphia, and Dr. Hutchinson, professor of chemistry in\nthe University of Pennsylvania, to be present at the experiments. Mr.\nIsaacs fixed the pot, a small caboose, with a tin cap and straight tube\nof tin passing obliquely through a cask of cold water; he made use of a\nmixture, the composition of which he did not explain, and from 24 pints\nof sea-water, taken up about three miles out of the Capes of Delaware,\nat flood-tide, he distilled 22 pints of fresh water in four hours with\n20 lbs. of seasoned pine, which was a little wetted by having lain in\nthe rain.\n\nIn a second experiment of the 21st of March, performed in a furnace,\nand five-gallon still at the college, from 32 pints of sea-water he\ndrew 31 pints of fresh water in 7 hours and 24 minutes, with 51 lbs. of\nhickory, which had been cut about six months. In order to decide whether\nMr. Isaacs' mixture contributed in any and what degree to the success\nof the operation, it was thought proper to repeat his experiment under\nthe same circumstances exactly, except the omission of the mixture.\nAccordingly, on the next day, the same quantity of sea-water was put\ninto the same still, the same furnace was used, and fuel from the same\nparcel; it yielded, as his had done, 31 pints fresh water in 11 minutes\nmore of time, and with 10 lbs. less of wood.\n\nOn the 24th of March, Mr. Isaacs performed a third experiment. For this,\na common iron pot of three and a half gallons was fixed in brick work,\nand the fine from the hearth wound once around this pot spirally, and\nthen passed off up a chimney.\n\nThe cap was of tin, and a straight tin tube of about two inches diameter\npassing obliquely through a barrel of water, served instead of a worm.\nFrom sixteen pints of sea-water he drew off fifteen pints of fresh water,\nin two hours fifty-five minutes, with 3 lbs. of dry hickory and 8 lbs. of\nseasoned pine. This experiment was also repeated the next day, with the\nsame apparatus, and fuel from the same parcel; but without the mixture,\nsixteen pints of sea-water yielded in like manner fifteen pints of fresh\nin one minute more of time, and with \u00bd lb. less of wood. On the whole,\nit was evident that Mr. Isaacs' mixture produced no advantage either in\nthe process or result of the distillation.\n\nThe distilled water in all these instances, was found on experiment to be\nas pure as the best pump water of the city; its taste, indeed, was not\nas agreeable, but it was not such as to produce any disgust. In fact,\nwe drink, in common life, in many places, and under many circumstances,\nand almost always at sea, a worse tasted and probably a less wholesome\nwater.\n\nThe obtaining fresh from salt-water was for ages considered as an\nimportant desideratum for the use of navigators. The process for doing\nthis by simple distillation is so efficacious, the erecting an extempore\nstill with such utensils as are found on board of every ship, is so\npracticable, as to authorize the assertion that this desideratum is\nsatisfied to a very useful degree. But though this has been done for\nupwards of thirty years, though its reality has been established by the\nactual experience of several vessels which have had recourse to it,\nyet neither the fact nor the process is known to the mass of seamen,\nto whom it would be the most useful, and for whom it was principally\nwanted. The Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that since the\nsubject has now been brought under observation, it should be made the\noccasion of disseminating its knowledge generally and effectually among\nthe seafaring citizens of the United States. The following is one of the\nmany methods which might be proposed for doing this: Let the clearance\nfor every vessel sailing from the ports of the United States be printed\non a paper, in the back whereof shall be a printed account of the essays\nwhich have been made for obtaining fresh from salt-water, mentioning\nshortly those which have been unsuccessful, and more fully those which\nhave succeeded, describing the methods which have been found to answer\nfor constructing extempore stills of such implements as are generally\non board of every vessel, with a recommendation in all cases where they\nshall have occasion to resort to this expedient for obtaining water,\nto publish the result of their trial in some gazette on their return to\nthe United States, or to communicate it for publication to the office of\nthe Secretary of State, in order that others may, by their success, be\nencouraged to make similar trials, and be benefited by any improvements\nor new ideas which may occur to them in practice.\n\n\nII. _Opinion on the proposition for establishing a Woollen Manufactory\nin Virginia._\n\nThe House of Delegates of Virginia seemed disposed to adventure \u00a32,500\nfor the encouragement of this undertaking, but the Senate did not concur.\nBy their returning to the subject, however, at a subsequent session, and\nwishing more specific propositions, it is probable they might be induced\nto concur, if they saw a certain provision that their money would not\nbe paid for nothing. Some unsuccessful experiments heretofore may have\nsuggested this caution.\n\nSuppose the propositions brought into some such shape as this: The\nundertaker is to contribute \u00a31,000, the State \u00a32,500, viz.: the undertaker\nhaving laid out his \u00a31,000 in the necessary implements to be brought\nfrom Europe, and these being landed in Virginia as a security that he\nwill proceed, let the State pay for\n\n the first necessary purposes then to occur \u00a31,000\n\n Let it pay him a stipend of \u00a3100 a year for the first three\n years 300\n\n Let it give him a bounty (suppose one-third) on every\n yard of woollen cloth equal to good plains, which he\n shall weave for five years, not exceeding \u00a3250 a year\n (20,000 yards) the four first years, and \u00a3200 the fifth 1,200\n ------\n \u00a32,500\n\nTo every workman whom he shall import, let them give, after he shall\nhave worked in the manufactory five years, warrants for ---- acres of\nland, and pay the expenses of survey, patents, &c. [This last article\nis to meet the proposition of the undertaker. I do not like it, because\nit tends to draw off the manufacturer from his trade. I should better\nlike a premium to him on his continuance in it; as, for instance, that\nhe should be free from State taxes as long as he should carry on his\ntrade.]\n\nThe President's intervention seems necessary till the contracts shall be\nconcluded. It is presumed he would not like to be embarrassed afterwards\nwith the details of superintendence. Suppose, in his answer to the\nGovernor of Virginia, he should say that the undertaker being in Europe,\nmore specific propositions cannot be obtained from him in time to be laid\nbefore this assembly; that in order to secure to the State the benefits\nof the establishment, and yet guard them against an unproductive grant\nof money, he thinks some plan like the preceding one might be proposed\nto the undertaker.\n\nThat as it is not known whether he would accept it exactly in that form,\nit might disappoint the views of the State were they to prescribe that\nor any other form rigorously, consequently that a discretionary power\nmust be given to a certain extent.\n\nThat he would willingly co\u00f6perate with their executive in effecting the\ncontract, and certainly would not conclude it on any terms worse for\nthe State than those before explained, and that the contracts being once\nconcluded, his distance and other occupations would oblige him to leave\nthe execution open to the Executive of the State.\n\n\nIII. _The Report on Copper Coinage, communicated to the House of\nRepresentatives, April 15th, 1790._\n\n April 14, 1790.\n\n The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House\n of Representatives, the letter of John H. Mitchell, reciting\n certain proposals for supplying the United States with copper\n coinage, has had the same under consideration, according to\n instructions, and begs leave to report thereon as follows:\n\nThe person who wishes to undertake the supply of a copper coinage, sets\nforth, that the superiority of his apparatus and process for coining,\nenables him to furnish a coinage better and cheaper than can be done by\nany country or person whatever; that his dies are engraved by the first\nartist in that line in Europe; that his apparatus for striking the edge\nat the same blow with the faces, is new, and singularly ingenious; that\nhe coins by a press on a new principle, and worked by a fire-engine, more\nregularly than can be done by hand; that he will deliver any quantity\nof coin, of any size and device, of pure, unalloyed copper, wrapped\nin paper and packed in casks, ready for shipping, for fourteen pence\nsterling the pound.\n\nThe Secretary of State has before been apprized, from other sources\nof information, of the great improvements made by this undertaker, in\nsundry arts; he is acquainted with the artist who invented the method of\nstriking the edge, and both faces of the coin at one blow; he has seen\nhis process and coins, and sent to the former Congress some specimens of\nthem, with certain offers from him, before he entered into the service\nof the present undertaker, (which specimens he takes the liberty of now\nsubmitting to the inspection of the House, as proofs of the superiority\nof this method of coinage, in gold and silver as well as copper.)\n\nHe is, therefore, of opinion, that the undertaker, aided by that artist,\nand by his own excellent machines, is truly in a condition to furnish\ncoin in a state of higher perfection than has ever yet been issued\nby any nation; that perfection in the engraving is among the greatest\nsafeguards against counterfeits, because engravers of the first class\nare few, and elevated by their rank in their art, far above the base\nand dangerous business of counterfeiting. That the perfection of coins\nwill indeed disappear, after they are for some time worn among other\npieces, and especially where the figures are rather faintly relieved,\nas on those of this artist; yet, their high finishing, while new, is\nnot the less a guard against counterfeits, because these, if carried to\nany extent, may be ushered into circulation new, also, and consequently,\nmay be compared with genuine coins in the same state; that, therefore,\nwhenever the United States shall be disposed to have a coin of their\nown, it will be desirable to aim at this kind of perfection. That this\ncannot be better effected, than by availing themselves, if possible,\nof the services of the undertaker, and of this artist, whose excellent\nmethods and machines are said to have abridged, as well as perfected,\nthe operations of coinage. These operations, however, and their expense,\nbeing new, and unknown here, he is unable to say whether the price\nproposed be reasonable or not. He is also uncertain whether, instead of\nthe larger copper coin, the Legislature might not prefer a lighter one\nof billon, or mixed metal, as is practised, with convenience, by several\nother nations--a specimen of which kind of coinage is submitted to their\ninspection.\n\nBut the propositions under consideration suppose that the work is to be\ncarried on in a foreign country, and that the implements are to remain\nthe property of the undertaker; which conditions, in his opinion, render\nthem inadmissible, for these reasons:\n\nCoinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty. To transfer its\nexercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.\n\nIts transportation across the ocean, besides the ordinary dangers of the\nsea, would expose it to acts of piracy, by the crews to whom it would\nbe confided, as well as by others apprized of its passage.\n\nIn time of war, it would offer to the enterprises of an enemy, what have\nbeen emphatically called the sinews of war.\n\nIf the war were with the nation within whose territory the coinage is,\nthe first act of war, or reprisal, might be to arrest this operation,\nwith the implements and materials coined and uncoined, to be used at\ntheir discretion.\n\nThe reputation and principles of the present undertaker are safeguards\nagainst the abuses of a coinage, carried on in a foreign country, where\nno checks could be provided by the proper sovereign, no regulations\nestablished, no police, no guard exercised; in short, none of the numerous\ncautions hitherto thought essential at every mint; but in hands less\nentitled to confidence, these will become dangers. We may be secured,\nindeed, by proper experiments as to the purity of the coin delivered\nus according to contract, but we cannot be secured against that which,\nthough less pure, shall be struck in the genuine die, and protected\nagainst the vigilance of Government, till it shall have entered into\ncirculation.\n\nWe lose the opportunity of calling in and re-coining the clipped money\nin circulation, or we double our risk by a double transportation.\n\nWe lose, in like manner, the resource of coining up our household plate\nin the instant of great distress.\n\nWe lose the means of forming artists to continue the works, when the\ncommon accidents of mortality shall have deprived us of those who began\nthem.\n\nIn fine, the carrying on a coinage in a foreign country, as far as the\nSecretary knows, is without example; and general example is weighty\nauthority.\n\nHe is, therefore, of opinion, on the whole, that a mint, whenever\nestablished, should be established at home; that the superiority, the\nmerit, and means of the undertaker, will suggest him as the proper person\nto be engaged in the establishment and conduct of a mint, on a scale\nwhich, relinquishing nothing in the perfection of the coin, shall be\nduly proportioned to our purposes.\n\nAnd, in the meanwhile, he is of opinion the present proposals should be\ndeclined.\n\n\nIV.--_Opinion on the question whether the Senate has the right to negative\nthe grade of persons appointed by the Executive to fill Foreign Missions._\n\n NEW YORK, April 24, 1790.\n\nThe constitution having declared that the President shall _nominate_\nand, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall _appoint_\nambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, the President desired\nmy opinion whether the Senate has a right to negative the _grade_ he may\nthink it expedient to use in a foreign mission as well as the _person_\nto be appointed.\n\nI think the Senate has no right to negative the _grade_.\n\nThe constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches,\nLegislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct\nmagistracy. The Legislative it has given completely to the Senate and\nHouse of Representatives. It has declared that the Executive powers\nshall be vested in the President, submitting special articles of it to\na negative by the Senate, and it has vested the Judiciary power in the\ncourts of justice, with certain exceptions also in favor of the Senate.\n\nThe transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether.\nIt belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such\nportions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are\nto be construed strictly.\n\nThe constitution itself indeed has taken care to circumscribe this one\nwithin very strict limits; for it gives the _nomination_ of the foreign\nagents to the President, the _appointments_ to him and the Senate jointly,\nand the _commissioning_ to the President.\n\nThis analysis calls our attention the strict import of each term. To\n_nominate_ must be to _propose_. _Appointment_ seems that act of the will\nwhich constitutes or makes the agent, and the _commission_ is the public\nevidence of it. But there are still other acts previous to these not\nspecially enumerated in the constitution, to wit: 1st. The destination\nof a mission to the particular country where the public service calls\nfor it, and second the character or grade to be employed in it. The\nnatural order of all these is first, destination; second, grade; third,\nnomination; fourth, appointment; fifth, commission. If _appointment_ does\nnot comprehend the neighboring acts of _nomination_ or _commission_,\n(and the constitution says it shall not, by giving them exclusively to\nthe President,) still less can it pretend to comprehend those previous\nand more remote, of _destination_ and _grade_.\n\nThe constitution, analyzing the three last, shows they do not comprehend\nthe two first. The fourth is the only one it submits to the Senate,\nshaping it into a right to say that \"A or B is unfit to be appointed.\"\nNow, this cannot comprehend a right to say that \"A or B is indeed fit\nto be appointed,\" but the grade fixed on is not the fit one to employ,\nor, \"our connections with the country of his destination are not such\nas to call for any mission.\"\n\nThe Senate is not supposed by the constitution to be acquainted with\nthe concerns of the Executive department. It was not intended that these\nshould be communicated to them, nor can they therefore be qualified to\njudge of the necessity which calls for a mission to any particular place,\nor of the particular grade, more or less marked, which special and secret\ncircumstances may call for. All this is left to the President. They are\nonly to see that no unfit person be employed.\n\nIt may be objected that the Senate may by continual negatives on\nthe _person_, do what amounts to a negative on the _grade_, and so,\nindirectly, defeat this right of the President. But this would be a\nbreach of trust; an abuse of power confided to the Senate, of which that\nbody cannot be supposed capable. So the President has a power to convoke\nthe Legislature, and the Senate might defeat that power by refusing\nto come. This equally amounts to a negative on the power of convoking.\nYet nobody will say they possess such a negative, or would be capable\nof usurping it by such oblique means. If the constitution had meant to\ngive the Senate a negative on the grade or destination, as well as the\nperson, it would have said so in direct terms, and not left it to be\neffected by a sidewind. It could never mean to give them the use of one\npower through the abuse of another.\n\n\nV.--_Opinion upon the validity of a grant made by the State of Georgia\nto certain companies of individuals, of a tract of country whereof the\nIndian right had never been extinguished, with power to such individuals\nto extinguish the Indian right._\n\n May 3d, 1790.\n\nThe State of Georgia, having granted to certain individuals a tract of\ncountry, within their chartered limits, whereof the Indian right has\nnever yet been acquired; with a proviso in the grants, which implies\nthat those individuals may take measures for extinguishing the Indian\nrights under the authority of that Government, it becomes a question\nhow far this grant is good?\n\nA society, taking possession of a vacant country, and declaring they mean\nto occupy it, does thereby appropriate to themselves as prime occupants\nwhat was before common. A practice introduced since the discovery of\nAmerica, authorizes them to go further, and to fix the limits which they\nassume to themselves; and it seems, for the common good, to admit this\nright to a moderate and reasonable extent.\n\nIf the country, instead of being altogether vacant, is thinly occupied\nby another nation, the right of the native forms an exception to that of\nthe new comers; that is to say, these will only have a right against all\nother nations except the natives. Consequently, they have the exclusive\nprivilege of acquiring the native right by purchase or other just means.\nThis is called the right of pre\u00ebmption, and is become a principle of\nthe law of nations, fundamental with respect to America. There are but\ntwo means of acquiring the native title. First, war; for even war may,\nsometimes, give a just title. Second, contracts or treaty.\n\nThe States of America before their present union possessed completely,\neach within its own limits, the exclusive right to use these two means\nof acquiring the native title, and, by their act of union, they have as\ncompletely ceded both to the general government. Art. 2d, Section 1st.\n\"The President shall have power, by and with the advice of the Senate,\nto make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.\"\nArt. 1st, Section 8th, \"The Congress shall have power to declare war, to\nraise and support armies.\" Section 10th, \"No State shall enter into any\ntreaty, alliance or confederation. No State shall, without the consent\nof Congress, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into\nany agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power,\nor engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as\nwill not admit of delay.\"\n\nThese paragraphs of the constitution, declaring that the general\ngovernment shall have, and that the particular ones shall not have, the\nright of war and treaty, are so explicit that no commentary can explain\nthem further, nor can any explain them away. Consequently, Georgia,\n_possessing the exclusive right to acquire the native title_, but having\nrelinquished the _means_ of doing it to the general government, can only\nhave put her grantee into her own condition. She could convey to them\nthe exclusive right to acquire; but she could not convey what she had\nnot herself, that is, the means of acquiring.\n\nFor these they must come to the general government, in whose hands they\nhave been wisely deposited for the purposes both of peace and justice.\n\nWhat is to be done? The right of the general government is, in my\nopinion, to be maintained. The case is sound, and the means of doing it\nas practicable as can ever occur. But respect and friendship should, I\nthink, mark the conduct of the general towards the particular government,\nand explanations should be asked and time and color given them to tread\nback their steps before coercion is held up to their view. I am told\nthere is already a strong party in Georgia opposed to the act of their\ngovernment.\n\nI should think it better then that the first measures, while firm, be\nyet so temperate as to secure their alliance and aid to the general\ngovernment.\n\nMight not the eclat of a proclamation revolt their pride and passion,\nand throw them hastily into the opposite scale? It will be proper indeed\nto require from the government of Georgia, in the first moment, that\nwhile the general government shall be expecting and considering her\nexplanations, things shall remain in _statu quo_, and not a move be made\ntowards carrying what they have begun into execution.\n\nPerhaps it might not be superfluous to send some person to the Indians\ninterested, to explain to them the views of government and to watch with\ntheir aid the territory in question.\n\n\nVI.--_Opinion in favor of the resolutions of May 21st, 1790 directing\nthat, in all cases where payment had not been already made, the debts\ndue to the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina, should be paid to\nthe original claimants or their attorneys, and not to their assignees._\n\n June 3d, 1790.\n\nThe accounts of the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina, having\nbeen examined by the proper officer of government, the balances due\nto each individual ascertained, and a list of these balances made out,\nthis list became known to certain persons before the soldiers themselves\nhad information of it, and those persons, by unfair means, as is said,\nand for very inadequate considerations, obtained assignments from many\nof the soldiers of whatever sum should be due to them from the public,\nwithout specifying the amount.\n\nThe legislature, to defeat this fraud, passed resolutions on the 21st\nof May, 1796, directing that where payment had not been made to the\noriginal claimant in person or his representatives, it shall be made\nto him or them personally, or to their attorney, producing a power for\nthat purpose, attested by two justices of the county where he resides,\nand specifying the certain sum he is to receive.\n\nIt has been objected to these resolutions that they annul transfers of\nproperty which were good by the laws under which they were made; that\nthey take from the assignees their lawful property; are contrary to the\nprinciples of the constitution, which condemn retrospective laws; and\nare, therefore, not worthy of the President's approbation.\n\nI agree in an almost unlimited condemnation of retrospective laws. The\nfew instances of wrong which they redress are so overweighed by the\ninsecurity they draw over all property and even over life itself, and\nby the atrocious violations of both to which they lead that it is better\nto live under the evil than the remedy.\n\nThe only question I shall make is, whether these resolutions annul acts\nwhich were valid when they were done?\n\nThis question respects the laws of Virginia and North Carolina only.\nOn the latter I am not qualified to decide, and therefore beg leave to\nconfine myself to the former.\n\nBy the common law of England (adopted in Virginia) the conveyance of a\nright to a debt or other thing whereof the party is not in possession,\nis not only void, but severely punishable under the names of Maintenance\nand Champerty. The Law-merchants, however, which is permitted to have\ncourse between merchants, allows the assignment of a _bill of exchange_\nfor the convenience of commerce. This, therefore, forms one exception to\nthe general rule, that a mere right or thing in action is not assignable.\nA second exception has been formed by an English statute (copied into the\nlaws of Virginia) permitting _promissory notes_ to be assigned. The laws\nof Virginia have gone yet further than the statute, and have allowed,\nas a third exception, that a _bond_ should be assigned, which cannot\nbe done even at this day in England. So that, in Virginia, when a debt\nhas been settled between the parties and put into the form of a bill of\nexchange, promissory note or bond, the law admits it to be transferred\nby assignment. In all other cases the assignment of a debt is void.\n\nThe debts from the United States to the soldiers of Virginia, not having\nbeen put into either of these forms, the assignments of them were void\nin law.\n\nA creditor may give an order on his debtor in favor of another, but if\nthe debtor does not accept it, he must be sued in the creditor's name;\nwhich shows that the _order_ does not transfer the property of the\ndebts. The creditor may appoint another to be his attorney to receive\nand recover his debt, and he may covenant that when received the attorney\nmay apply it to his own use. But he must sue as attorney to the original\nproprietor, and not in his own right.\n\nThis proves that a _power of attorney_, with such a _covenant_, does\nnot transfer the property of the debt. A further proof in both cases is,\nthat the original creditor may at any time before payment or acceptance\nrevoke either his order or his power of attorney.\n\nIn that event the person in whose favor they were given has recourse to\na court of equity. When there, the judge examines whether he has done\nequity. If he finds his transaction has been a fair one, he gives him\naid. If he finds it has been otherwise, not permitting his court to be\nmade a handmaid to fraud, he leaves him without remedy in equity as he\nwas in law. The assignments in the present case, therefore, if unfairly\nobtained, as seems to be admitted, are void in equity as they are in law.\nAnd they derive their nullity from the laws under which they were made,\nnot from the new resolutions of Congress. These are not retrospective.\nThey only direct their treasurer not to give validity to an assignment\nwhich had it not before, by payments to the assignee until he in whom\nthe legal property still is, shall order it in such a form as to show\nhe is apprized of the sum he is to part with, and its readiness to be\npaid into his or any other hands, and that he chooses, notwithstanding,\nto acquiesce under the fraud which has been practised on him. In that\ncase he has only to execute before two justices a power of attorney to\nthe same person, expressing the specific sum of his demand, and it is to\nbe complied with. Actual payment, in this case, is an important act. If\nmade to the assignee, it would put the burthen of proof and process on\nthe original owner. If made to that owner, it puts it on the assignee,\nwho must then come forward and show that his transaction has been that\nof an honest man.\n\nGovernment seems to be doing in this what every individual, I think,\nwould feel himself bound to do in the case of his own debt. For, being\nfree in the law, to pay to the one or the other, he would certainly give\nthe advantage to the party who has suffered wrong rather than to him\nwho has committed it.\n\nIt is not honorable to take a mere legal advantage, when it happens to\nbe contrary to justice.\n\nBut it is honorable to embrace a salutary principle of law when a\nrelinquishment of it is solicited only to support a fraud.\n\nI think the resolutions, therefore, merit approbation. I have before\nprofessed my incompetence to say what are the laws of North Carolina\non this subject. They, like Virginia, adopted the English laws in the\ngross. These laws forbid in general the buying and selling of debts, and\ntheir policy in this is so wise that I presume they had not changed it\ntill the contrary be shown.\n\n\nVII.--_Plan for establishing uniformity in the Coinage, Weights,\nand Measures of the United States. Communicated to the House of\nRepresentatives, July 13, 1790._\n\n NEW YORK, July 4, 1790.\n\nSIR:--In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives of\nJanuary 15th, I have now the honor to enclose you a report on the subject\nof measures, weights, and coins. The length of time which intervened\nbetween the date of the order and my arrival in this city, prevented my\nreceiving it till the 15th of April; and an illness which followed soon\nafter added, unavoidably, some weeks to the delay; so that it was not\ntill about the 20th May that I was able to finish the report. A desire\nto lessen the number of its imperfections induced me still to withhold\nit awhile, till, on the 15th of June, came to my hands, from Paris, a\nprinted copy of a proposition made by the Bishop of Autun, to the National\nAssembly of France, on the subject of weights and measures; and three\ndays afterwards I received, through the channel of the public papers,\nthe speech of Sir John Riggs Miller, of April 13th, in the British House\nof Commons, on the same subject. In the report which I had prepared, and\nwas then about to give in, I had proposed the latitude of 38\u00b0, as that\nwhich should fix our standard, because it was the medium latitude of\nthe United States; but the proposition before the National Assembly of\nFrance, to take that of 45\u00b0 as being a middle term between the equator\nand both poles, and a term which consequently might unite the nations of\nboth hemispheres, appeared to me so well chosen, and so just, that I did\nnot hesitate a moment to prefer it to that of 38\u00b0. It became necessary,\nof course, to conform all my calculations to that standard--an operation\nwhich has been retarded by my other occupations.\n\nThese circumstances will, I hope, apologize for the delay which has\nattended the execution of the order of the House; and, perhaps, a\ndisposition on their part to have due regard for the proceedings of other\nnations, engaged on the same subject, may induce them still to defer\ndeciding ultimately on it till their next session. Should this be the\ncase, and should any new matter occur in the meantime, I shall think it\nmy duty to communicate it to the House, as supplemental to the present\nreport.\n\nI have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect,\n\n Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of\nRepresentatives, to prepare and report a proper plan or plans for\nestablishing uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the\nUnited States, in obedience thereto, makes the following report:--\n\nTo obtain uniformity in measures, weights, and coins, it is necessary\nto find some measure of invariable length, with which, as a standard,\nthey may be compared.\n\nThere exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a\nsingle subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which presents\none constant and uniform dimension.\n\nThe globe of the earth itself, indeed, might be considered as invariable\nin all its dimensions, and that its circumference would furnish an\ninvariable measure; but no one of its circles, great or small, is\naccessible to admeasurement through all its parts, and the various trials\nto measure definite portions of them, have been of such various result\nas to show there is no dependence on that operation for certainty.\n\nMatter, then, by its mere extension, furnishing nothing invariable, its\nmotion is the only remaining resource.\n\nThe motion of the earth round its axis, though not absolutely uniform\nand invariable, may be considered as such for every human purpose. It is\nmeasured obviously, but unequally, by the departure of a given meridian\nfrom the sun, and its return to it, constituting a solar day. Throwing\ntogether the inequalities of solar days, a mean interval, or day, has\nbeen found, and divided, by very general consent, into 86,400 equal parts.\n\nA pendulum, vibrating freely, in small and equal arcs, may be so adjusted\nin its length, as, by its vibrations, to make this division of the\nearth's motion into 86,400 equal parts, called seconds of mean time.\n\nSuch a pendulum, then, becomes itself a measure of determinate length,\nto which all others may be referred to as to a standard.\n\nBut even a pendulum is not without its uncertainties.\n\n1. The difficulty of ascertaining, in practice, its centre of oscillation,\nas depending on the form of the bob, and its distance from the point\nof suspension; the effect of the weight of the suspending wire towards\ndisplacing the centre of oscillation; that centre being seated within\nthe body of the bob, and therefore inaccessible to the measure, are\nsources of considerable uncertainty.\n\n2. Both theory and experience prove that, to preserve its isochronism,\nit must be shorter towards the equator, and longer towards the poles.\n\n3. The height of the situation above the common level, as being an\nincrement to the radius of the earth, diminishes the length of the\npendulum.\n\n4. The pendulum being made of metal, as is best, it varies its length\nwith the variations in the temperature of the atmosphere.\n\n5. To continue small and equal vibrations, through a sufficient length\nof time, and to count these vibrations, machinery and a power are\nnecessary, which may exert a small but constant effort to renew the\nwaste of motion; and the difficulty is so to apply these, as that they\nshall neither retard or accelerate the vibrations.\n\n1. In order to avoid the uncertainties which respect the centre of\noscillation, it has been proposed by Mr. Leslie, an ingenious artist\nof Philadelphia, to substitute, for the pendulum, a uniform cylindrical\nrod, without a bob.\n\nCould the diameter of such a rod be infinitely small, the centre of\noscillation would be exactly at two-thirds of the whole length, measured\nfrom the point of suspension. Giving it a diameter which shall render it\nsufficiently inflexible, the centre will be displaced, indeed; but, in\na second rod not the (1) six hundred thousandth part of its length, and\nnot the hundredth part as much as in a second pendulum with a spherical\nbob of proper diameter. This displacement is so infinitely minute,\nthen, that we may consider the centre of oscillation, for all practical\npurposes, as residing at two-thirds of the length from the centre of\nsuspension. The distance between these two centres might be easily and\naccurately ascertained in practice. But the whole rod is better for a\nstandard than any portion of it, because sensibly defined at both its\nextremities.\n\n2. The uncertainty arising from the difference of length requisite for\nthe second pendulum, or the second rod, in different latitudes, may\nbe avoided by fixing on some one latitude, to which our standard shall\nrefer. That of 38\u00b0, as being the middle latitude of the United States,\nmight seem the most convenient, were we to consider ourselves alone; but\nconnected with other nations by commerce and science, it is better to\nfix on that parallel which bids fairest to be adopted by them also. The\n45th, as being the middle term between the equator and pole, has been\nheretofore proposed in Europe, and the proposition has been lately renewed\nthere under circumstances which may very possibly give it some effect.\nThis parallel is distinguished with us also as forming our principal\nnorthern boundary. Let the completion of the 45th degree, then, give\nthe standard for our union, with the hope that it may become a line of\nunion with the rest of the world.\n\nThe difference between the second rod for 45\u00b0 of latitude, and that for\n31\u00b0, our other extreme, is to be examined.\n\nThe second _pendulum_ for 45\u00b0 of latitude, according to Sir Isaac Newton's\ncomputation, must be of (2) 39.14912 inches English measure; and a\n_rod_, to vibrate in the same time, must be of the same length between\nthe centres of suspension and oscillation; and, consequently, its whole\nlength 58.7 (or, more exactly, 58.72368) inches. This is longer than\nthe rod which shall vibrate seconds in the 31\u00b0 of latitude, by about\n1/679 part of its whole length; a difference so minute, that it might\nbe neglected, as insensible, for the common purposes of life, but, in\ncases requiring perfect exactness, the second rod, found by trial of\nits vibrations in any part of the United States, may be corrected by\ncomputation for the (3) latitude of the place, and so brought exactly\nto the standard of 45\u00b0.\n\n3. By making the experiment in the level of the ocean, the difference\nwill be avoided, which a higher position might occasion.\n\n4. The expansion and contraction of the rod with the change of\ntemperature, is the fourth source of uncertainty before mentioned.\nAccording to the high authority so often quoted, an iron rod, of given\nlength, may vary, between summer and winter, in temperate latitudes,\nand in the common exposure of house clocks, from 1/1728 to 1/2592 of\nits whole length, which, in a rod of 58.7 inches, will be from about\ntwo to three hundredths of an inch. This may be avoided by adjusting and\npreserving the standard in a cellar, or other place, the temperature of\nwhich never varies. Iron is named for this purpose, because the least\nexpansible of the metals.\n\n5. The practical difficulty resulting from the effect of the machinery\nand moving power is very inconsiderable in the present state of the arts;\nand, in their progress towards perfection, will become less and less.\nTo estimate and obviate this, will be the artist's province. It is as\nnothing when compared with the sources of inaccuracy hitherto attending\nmeasures.\n\nBefore quitting the subject of the inconveniences, some of which attend\nthe pendulum alone, others both the pendulum and rod, it must be added\nthat the rod would have an accidental but very precious advantage over\nthe pendulum in this country, in the event of our fixing the foot at the\nnearest aliquot part of either; for the difference between the common\nfoot, and those so to be deduced, would be three times greater in the\ncase of the pendulum than in that of the rod.\n\nLet the standard of measure, then, be a uniform cylindrical rod of iron,\nof such length as, in latitude 45\u00b0, in the level of the ocean, and in a\ncellar, or other place, the temperature of which does not vary through\nthe year, shall perform its vibrations in small and equal arcs, in one\nsecond of mean time.\n\nA standard of invariable length being thus obtained, we may proceed\nto identify, by that, the measures, weights and coins of the United\nStates; but here a doubt presents itself as to the extent of the\nreformation meditated by the House of Representatives. The experiment\nmade by Congress in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six,\nby declaring that there should be one money of account and payment\nthrough the United States, and that its parts and multiples should be\nin a decimal ratio,[23] has obtained such general approbation, both at\nhome and abroad, that nothing seems wanting but the actual coinage, to\nbanish the discordant pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of the\ndifferent States, and to establish in their stead the new denominations.\nIs it in contemplation with the House of Representatives to extend a\nlike improvement to our measures and weights, and to arrange them also\nin a decimal ratio? The facility which this would introduce into the\nvulgar arithmetic would, unquestionably, be soon and sensibly felt by\nthe whole mass of the people, who would thereby be enabled to compute\nfor themselves whatever they should have occasion to buy, to sell, or\nto measure, which the present complicated and difficult ratios place\nbeyond their computation for the most part. Or, is it the opinion of the\nRepresentatives that the difficulty of changing the established habits\nof a whole nation opposes an insuperable bar to this improvement? Under\nthis uncertainty, the Secretary of State thinks it his duty to submit\nalternative plans, that the House may, at their will, adopt either the\none or the other, exclusively, or the one for the present and the other\nfor a future time, when the public mind may be supposed to have become\nfamiliarized to it.\n\nI. And first, on the supposition that the present measures and weights\nare to be retained but to be rendered uniform and invariable, by bringing\nthem to the same invariable standard.\n\nThe first settlers of these States, having come chiefly from England,\nbrought with them the measures and weights of that country. These alone\nare generally established among us, either by law or usage; and these,\ntherefore, are alone to be retained and fixed. We must resort to that\ncountry for information of what they are, or ought to be.\n\nThis rests, principally, on the evidence of certain standard measures and\nweights, which have been preserved, of long time, in different deposits.\nBut differences among these having been known to exist, the House of\nCommons, in the years 1757 and 1758, appointed committees to inquire into\nthe original standards of their weights and measures. These committees,\nassisted by able mathematicians and artists, examined and compared with\neach other the several standard measures and weights, and made reports\non them in the years 1758 and 1759. The circumstances under which these\nreports were made entitle them to be considered, as far as they go, as\nthe best written testimony existing of the standard measures and weights\nof England; and as such, they will be relied on in the progress of this\nreport.\n\nMEASURES OF LENGTH.\n\n The measures of length in use among us are:\n\n The league of 3 miles, The fathom of 2 yards,\n The mile of 8 furlongs, The ell of a yard and quarter,\n The furlong of 40 poles or perches, The yard of 3 feet,\n The foot of 12 inches, and\n The pole or perch of 5\u00bd yards, The inch of 10 lines.\n\nOn this branch of their subject, the committee of 1757-1758, says that\nthe standard measures of length at the receipt of the exchequer, are\na yard, supposed to be of the time of Henry VII., and a yard and ell\nsupposed to have been made about the year 1601; that they are brass\nrods, very coarsely made, their divisions not exact, and the rods bent;\nand that in the year 1742, some members of the Royal Society had been\nat great pains in taking an exact measure of these standards, by very\ncurious instruments, prepared by the ingenious Mr. Graham; that the\nRoyal Society had had a brass rod made pursuant to their experiments,\nwhich was made so accurately, and by persons so skilful and exact, that\nit was thought not easy to obtain a more exact one; and the committee,\nin fact, found it to agree with the standards at the exchequer, as near\nas it was possible. They furnish no means, to persons at a distance, of\nknowing what this standard is. This, however, is supplied by the evidence\nof the second pendulum, which, according to the authority before quoted,\nis, at London, 39.1682 English inches, and, consequently, the second\nrod there is of 58.7523 of the same inches. When we shall have found,\nthen, by actual trial, the second rod for 45\u00b0 by adding the difference\nof their computed length, to wit: 287/10000 of an inch, or rather 3/10\nof a line (which in practice will endanger less error than an attempt\nat so minute a fraction as the ten thousandth parts of an inch) we shall\nhave the second rod of London, or a true measure of 58\u00be English inches.\nOr, to shorten the operation, without varying the result,\n\nLet the standard rod of 45\u00b0 be divided into 587\u2155 equal parts, and\nlet each of these parts be declared a line.\n\n 10 lines an inch, 5\u00bd yards a perch or pole,\n 12 inches a foot, 40 poles or perches a furlong,\n 3 feet a yard, 8 furlongs a mile,\n 3 feet 9 inches an ell, 3 miles a league.\n 6 feet a fathom,\n\nSUPERFICIAL MEASURES\n\nOur measures of surface are, the acre of 4 roods and the rood of 40\nsquare poles; so established by a statute of 33 Edw. 1. Let them remain\nthe same.\n\nMEASURES OF CAPACITY.\n\nThe measures of capacity in use among us are of the following names and\nproportions:\n\nThe gill, four of which make a pint.\n\nTwo pints make a quart.\n\nTwo quarts a pottle.\n\nTwo pottles a gallon.\n\nTwo gallons a peck, dry measure.\n\nEight gallons make a measure called a firkin, in liquid substances, and\na bushel, dry.\n\nTwo firkins, or bushels, make a measure called a rundlet or kilderkin,\nliquid, and a strike, dry.\n\nTwo kilderkins, or strikes, make a measure called a barrel, liquid, and\na coomb, dry; this last term being ancient and little used.\n\nTwo barrels, or coombs, make a measure called a hogshead, liquid, or a\nquarter, dry; each being the quarter of a ton.\n\nA hogshead and a third make a tierce, or third of a ton.\n\nTwo hogsheads make a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and\n\nTwo pipes make a ton.\n\nBut no one of these measures is of a determinate capacity. The report\nof the committee of 1757-8, shows that the gallon is of very various\ncontent; and that being the unit, all the others must vary with it.\n\nThe gallon and bushel contain--\n\n 224 and 1792 cubic inches, according to the standard wine\n gallon preserved at Guildhall.\n\n 231 and 1848, according to the statute of 5th of Anne. 264.8\n and 2118.4, according to the ancient Rumford quart, of 1228,\n examined by the committee.\n\n 265.5 and 2124, according to three standard bushels preserved\n in the Exchequer, to wit: one of Henry VII., without a rim;\n one dated 1091, supposed for 1591, or 1601, and one dated 1601.\n\n 266.25 and 2130, according to the ancient Rumford gallon of\n 1228, examined by the committee.\n\n 268.75 and 2150, according to the Winchester bushel, as declared\n by statute 13, 14, William III., which has been the model for\n some of the grain States.\n\n 271, less 2 spoonfuls, and 2168, less 16 spoonfuls, according\n to a standard gallon of Henry VII., and another dated 1601,\n marked E. E., both in the Exchequer.\n\n 271 and 2168, according to a standard gallon in the Exchequer,\n dated 1601, marked E., and called the corn gallon.\n\n 272 and 2176, according to the three standard corn gallons\n last mentioned, as measured in 1688, by an artist for the\n Commissioners of the Excise, generally used in the seaport\n towns, and by mercantile people, and thence introduced into\n some of the grain States.\n\n 277.18 and 2217.44, as established for the measure of coal by\n the statute 12 Anne.\n\n 278 and 2224, according to the standard bushel of Henry VII.,\n with a copper rim, in the Exchequer.\n\n 278.4 and 2227.2 according to two standard pints of 1601 and\n 1602, in the Exchequer.\n\n 280 and 2240, according to the standard quart of 1601, in the\n Exchequer.\n\n 282 and 2256, according to the standard gallon for beer and\n ale in the Treasury.\n\nThere are, moreover, varieties on these varieties, from the barrel to\nthe ton, inclusive; for, if the barrel be of herrings, it must contain\n28 gallons by the statute 13 Eliz. c. 11. If of wine, it must contain\n31\u00bd gallons by the statute 2 Henry VI. c. 11, and 1 Rich. III. c. 15.\nIf of beer or ale, it must contain 34 gallons by the statute 1 William\nand Mary, c. 24, and the higher measures in proportion.\n\nIn those of the United States which have not adopted the statutes of\nWilliam and Mary, and of Anne before cited, nor their substance, the wine\ngallon of 231 cubic inches rests on the authority of very long usage,\nbefore the 5th of Anne, the origin and foundation of which are unknown;\nthe bushel is the Winchester bushel, by the 11 Henry VII. undefined; and\nthe barrel of ale 32 gallons, and of beer 36 gallons, by the statute 23\nHenry VIII c. 4.\n\nThe Secretary of State is not informed whether there have been any, and\nwhat, alterations of these measures by the laws of the particular States.\n\nIt is proposed to retain this series of measures, but to fix the gallon\nto one determinate capacity, as the unit of measure, both wet and dry;\nfor convenience is in favor of abolishing the distinction between wet\nand dry measures.\n\nThe wine gallon, whether of 224 or 231 cubic inches, may be altogether\ndisregarded, as concerning, principally, the mercantile and the wealthy,\nthe least numerous part of the society, and the most capable of reducing\none measure to another by calculation. This gallon is little used among\nthe mass of farmers, whose chief habits and interests are in the size\nof the corn bushel.\n\nOf the standard measures before stated, two are principally distinguished\nin authority and practice. The statute bushel of 2150 cubic inches, which\ngives a gallon of 268.75 cubic inches, and the standard gallon of 1601,\ncalled the corn gallon of 271 or 272 cubic inches, which has introduced\nthe mercantile bushel of 2276 inches. The former of these is most used\nin some of the grain States, the latter in others. The middle term of\n270 cubic inches may be taken as a mutual compromise of convenience,\nand as offering this general advantage: that the bushel being of 2160\ncubic inches, is exactly a cubic foot and a quarter, and so facilitates\nthe conversion of wet and dry measures into solid contents and tonnage,\nand simplifies the connection of measures and weights, as will be shown\nhereafter. It may be added, in favor of this, as a medium measure, that\neight of the standard, or statute measures before enumerated, are below\nthis term, and nine above it.\n\n The measures to be made for use, being four sided, with\n rectangular sides and bottom.\n\n The pint will be 3 inches square, and 3\u00be inches deep;\n\n The quart 3 inches square, and 7\u00bd inches deep;\n\n The pottle 3 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 4\u00bd, 5, and\n 6 inches;\n\n The gallon 6 inches square, and 7\u00bd inches deep, or 5, 6, and\n 9 inches;\n\n The peck 6, 9, and 10 inches;\n\n The half bushel 12 inches square, and 7\u00bd inches deep; and\n\n The bushel 12 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 9, 15,\n and 16 inches.\n\nCylindrical measures have the advantage of superior strength, but square\nones have the greater advantage of enabling every one who has a rule\nin his pocket, to verify their contents by measuring them. Moreover,\ntill the circle can be squared, the cylinder cannot be cubed, nor its\ncontents exactly expressed in figures.\n\n Let the measures of capacity, then, for the United States be--\n\n A gallon of 270 cubic inches;\n\n The gallon to contain 2 pottles;\n\n The pottle 2 quarts;\n\n The quart 2 pints;\n\n The pint 4 gills;\n\n Two gallons to make a peck;\n\n Eight gallons a bushel or firkin;\n\n Two bushels, or firkin, a strike or kilderkin;\n\n Two strikes, or kilderkins, a coomb or barrel;\n\n Two coombs, or barrels, a quarter or hogshead;\n\n A hogshead and a third one tierce;\n\n Two hogsheads a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and\n\n Two pipes a ton.\n\n And let all measures of capacity of dry subjects be stricken\n with a straight strike.\n\nWEIGHTS.\n\nThere are two series of weights in use among us; the one called\navoirdupois, the other troy.\n\n_In the Avoirdupois series_:\n\n The pound is divided into 16 ounces;\n The ounce into 16 drachms;\n The drachm into 4 quarters.\n\n_In the Troy series_:\n\n The pound is divided into 12 ounces;\n The ounce (according to the subdivision of the apothecaries)\n into 8 drachms;\n The drachm into 3 scruples;\n The scruple into 20 grains.\n\nAccording to the subdivision for gold and silver, the ounce is divided\ninto twenty pennyweights, and the pennyweight into twenty-four grains.\n\nSo that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite\nto make the pound avoirdupois; of course the weight of the pound troy\nis to that of the 7000, or as 144 to 175.\n\nIt is remarkable that this is exactly the proportion of the ancient\nliquid gallon of Guildhall of 224 cubic inches, to the corn gallon of\n272; for 224 are to 272 as 144 to 175. (4.)\n\nIt is further remarkable still, that this is also the exact proportion\nbetween the specific weight of any measure of wheat, and of the same\nmeasure of water: for the statute bushel is of 64 pounds of wheat. Now\nas 144 to 175, so are 64 pounds to 77.7 pounds; but 77.7 pounds is known\nto be the weight of (5.) 2150.4 cubic inches of pure water, which is\nexactly the content of the Winchester bushel, as declared by the statute\n13, 14, Will. 3. That statute determined the bushel to be a cylinder of\n18\u00bd inches diameter, and 8 inches depth. Such a cylinder, as nearly as it\ncan be cubed, and expressed in figures, contains 2150.425 cubic inches;\na result which reflects authority on the declaration of Parliament, and\ninduces a favorable opinion of the care with which they investigated\nthe contents of the ancient bushel, and also a belief that there might\nexist evidence of it at that day, unknown to the committees of 1758 and\n1759.\n\nWe find, then, in a continued proportion 64 to 77.7 as 224 to 272, and as\n144 to 175, that is to say, the specific weight of a measure of wheat,\nto that of the same measure of water, as the cubic contents of the wet\ngallon, to those of the dry; and as the weight of a pound troy to that\nof a pound avoirdupois.\n\nThis seems to have been so combined as to render it indifferent whether\na thing were dealt out by weight or measure; for the dry gallon of wheat,\nand the liquid one of wine, were of the same weight; and the avoirdupois\npound of wheat, and the troy pound of wine, were of the same measure.\nWater and the vinous liquors, which enter most into commerce, are so\nnearly of a weight, that the difference, in moderate quantities, would\nbe neglected by both buyer and seller; some of the wines being a little\nheavier, and some a little lighter, than water.\n\nAnother remarkable correspondence is that between weights and measures.\nFor 1000 ounces avoirdupois of pure water fill a cubic foot, with\nmathematical exactness.\n\nWhat circumstances of the times, or purposes of barter or commerce, called\nfor this combination of weights and measures, with the subjects to be\nexchanged or purchased, are not now to be ascertained. But a triple set\nof exact proportionals representing weights, measures, and the things\nto be weighed and measured, and a relation so integral between weights\nand solid measures, must have been the result of design and scientific\ncalculation, and not a mere coincidence of hazard. It proves that the dry\nand wet measures, the heavy and light weights, must have been original\nparts of the system they compose--contrary to the opinion of the committee\nof 1757, 1758, who thought that the avoirdupois weight was not an ancient\nweight of the kingdom, nor ever even a legal weight, but during a single\nyear of the reign of Henry VIII.; and, therefore, concluded, otherwise\nthan will be here proposed, to suppress it altogether. Their opinion was\nfounded chiefly on the silence of the laws as to this weight. But the\nharmony here developed in the system of weights and measures, of which\nthe avoirdupois makes an essential member, corroborated by a general\nuse, from very high antiquity, of that, or of a nearly similar weight\nunder another (6.) name, seem stronger proofs that this is legal weight,\nthan the mere silence of the written laws is of the contrary.\n\nBe this as it may, it is in such general use with us, that, on the\nprinciple of popular convenience, its higher denominations, at least, must\nbe preserved. It is by the avoirdupois pound and ounce that our citizens\nhave been used to buy and sell. But the smaller subdivisions of drachms\nand quarters are not in use with them. On the other hand, they have been\nused to weigh their money and medicine with the pennyweights and grains\ntroy weight, and are not in the habit of using the pounds and ounces\nof that series. It would be for their convenience, then, to suppress\nthe pound and ounce troy, and the drachm and quarter avoirdupois; and\nto form into one series the avoirdupois pound and ounce, and the troy\npennyweight and grain. The avoirdupois ounce contains 18 pennyweights\n5\u00bd grains troy weight. Divide it, then, into 18 pennyweights, and the\npennyweight, as heretofore, into 24 grains, and the new pennyweight will\ncontain between a third and a quarter of a grain more than the present\ntroy pennyweight; or, more accurately, it will be to that as 875 to\n864--a difference not to be noticed, either in money or medicine, below\nthe denomination of an ounce.\n\nBut it will be necessary to refer these weights to a determinate mass of\nsome substance, the specific gravity of which is invariable. Rain water\nis such a substance, and may be referred to everywhere, and through\nall time. It has been found by accurate experiments that a cubic foot\nof rain water weighs 1000 ounces avoirdupois, standard weights of the\nexchequer. It is true that among these standard weights the committee\nreport small variations; but this experiment must decide in favor of\nthose particular weights, between which, and an integral mass of water,\nso remarkable a coincidence has been found. To render this standard more\nexact, the water should be weighed always in the same temperature of\nair; as heat, by increasing its volume, lessens its specific gravity.\nThe cellar of uniform temperature is best for this also.\n\nLet it, then, be established that an ounce is of the weight of a cube\nof rain water, of one-tenth of a foot; or, rather, that it is the\nthousandth part of the weight of a cubic foot of rain water, weighed\nin the standard temperature; that the series of weights of the United\nStates shall consist of pounds, ounces, pennyweights, and grains; whereof\n\n 24 grains shall be one pennyweight;\n 18 pennyweights one ounce;\n 16 ounces one pound.\n\nCOINS.\n\nCongress, in 1786, established the money unit at 375.64 troy grains\nof pure silver. It is proposed to enlarge this by about the third of a\ngrain in weight, or a mill in value; that is to say, to establish it at\n376 (or, more exactly, 375.989343) instead of 375.64 grains; because it\nwill be shown that this, as the unit of coin, will link in system with\nthe units of length, surface, capacity, and weight, whenever it shall be\nthought proper to extend the decimal ratio through all these branches.\nIt is to preserve the possibility of doing this, that this very minute\nalteration is proposed.\n\nWe have this proportion, then, 875 to 864, as 375.989343 grains troy to\n371.2626277; the expression of the unit in the new grains.\n\nLet it be declared, therefore, that the money unit, or dollar of the\nUnited States, shall contain 371.262 American grains of pure silver.\n\nIf nothing more, then, is proposed, than to render uniform and stable\nthe system we already possess, this may be effected on the plan herein\ndetailed; the sum of which is: 1st. That the present measures of length\nbe retained, and fixed by an invariable standard. 2d. That the measures\nof surface remain as they are, and be invariable also as the measures of\nlength to which they are to refer. 3d. That the unit of capacity, now so\nequivocal, be settled at a medium and convenient term, and defined by\nthe same invariable measures of length. 4th. That the more known terms\nin the two kinds of weights be retained, and reduced to one series, and\nthat they be referred to a definite mass of some substance, the specific\ngravity of which never changes. And 5th. That the quantity of pure silver\nin the money unit be expressed in parts of the weights so defined.\n\nIn the whole of this no change is proposed, except an insensible one in\nthe troy grain and pennyweight, and the very minute one in the money unit.\n\nII. But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the\ncitizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough\nreformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins,\nreducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established in\ntheir coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal affairs\nof life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide\nplain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.\n\nThe unit of measure is still that which must give law through the whole\nsystem; and from whatever unit we set out, the coincidences between the\nold and new ratios will be rare. All that can be done, will be to choose\nsuch a unit as will produce the most of these. In this respect the second\nrod has been found, on trial, to be far preferable to the second pendulum.\n\nMEASURES OF LENGTH.\n\nLet the second rod, then, as before described, be the standard of measure;\nand let it be divided into five equal parts, each of which shall be\ncalled a foot; for, perhaps, it may be better generally to retain the\nname of the nearest present measure, where there is one tolerably near.\nIt will be about one quarter of an inch shorter than the present foot.\n\n Let the foot be divided into 10 inches;\n The inch into 10 lines;\n The line into 10 points;\n Let 10 feet make a decad;\n 10 decads one rood;\n 10 roods a furlong;\n 10 furlongs a mile.\n\nSUPERFICIAL MEASURES.\n\nSuperficial measures have been estimated, and so may continue to be, in\nsquares of the measures of length, except in the case of lands, which\nhave been estimated by squares, called roods and acres. Let the rood be\nequal to a square, every side of which is 100 feet. This will be 6.483\nEnglish feet less than the English (7.) rood every way, and 1311 square\nfeet less in its whole contents; that is to say, about one-eighth; in\nwhich proportion, also, 4 roods will be less than the present acre.\n\nMEASURES OF CAPACITY.\n\nLet the unit of capacity be the cubic foot, to be called a bushel. It\nwill contain 1620.05506862 cubic inches, English; be about one-fourth\nless than that before proposed to be adopted as a medium; one-tenth less\nthan the bushel made from 8 of the Guildhall gallons; and one-fourteenth\nless than the bushel made from 8 Irish gallons of 217.6 cubic inches.\n\n Let the bushel be divided into 10 pottles;\n Each pottle into 10 demi-pints;\n Each demi-pint into 10 metres, which will be of a cubic inch each.\n Let 10 bushels be a quarter, and\n 10 quarters a last, or double ton.\n\nThe measures for use being four-sided, and the sides and bottoms\nrectangular, the bushel will be a foot cube.\n\n The pottle 5 inches square and four inches deep;\n The demi-pint 2 inches square, and 2\u00bd inches deep;\n The metre, an inch cube.\n\nWEIGHTS.\n\nLet the weight of a cubic inch of rain water, or the thousandth part of\na cubic foot, be called an ounce; and let the ounce be divided into 10\ndouble scruples:\n\n The double scruple into 10 carats;\n The carat into 10 minims or demi-grains;\n The minim into 10 mites.\n Let 10 ounces make a pound;\n 10 pounds a stone;\n 16 stones a kental;\n 10 kentals a hogshead.\n\nCOINS.\n\nLet the money unit, or dollar, contain eleventh-twelfths of an ounce of\npure silver. This will be 376 troy grains, (or more exactly, 375.959343\ntroy grains,) which will be about a third of a grain, (or more exactly,\n.349343 of a grain,) more than the present unit. This, with the twelfth\nof alloy already established, will make the dollar or unit, of the weight\nof an ounce, or of a cubic inch of rain water, exactly. The series of\nmills, cents, dimes, dollars, and eagles, to remain as already established\n(8.)\n\nThe second rod, or the second pendulum, expressed in the measures of\nother countries, will give the proportion between their measures and\nthose of the United States.\n\nMeasures, weights and coins, thus referred to standards unchangeable\nin their nature, (as is the length of a rod vibrating seconds, and the\nweight of a definite mass of rain water,) will themselves be unchangeable.\nThese standards, too, are such as to be accessible to all persons, in all\ntimes and places. The measures and weights derived from them fall in so\nnearly with some of those now in use, as to facilitate their introduction;\nand being arranged in decimal ratio, they are within the calculation of\nevery one who possesses the first elements of arithmetic, and of easy\ncomparison, both for foreigners and citizens, with the measures, weights,\nand coins of other countries.\n\nA gradual introduction would lessen the inconveniences which might attend\ntoo sudden a substitution, even of an easier for a more difficult system.\nAfter a given term, for instance, it might begin in the custom-houses,\nwhere the merchants would become familiarized to it. After a further\nterm, it might be introduced into all legal proceedings, and merchants\nand traders in foreign commodities might be required to use it in\ntheir dealings with one another. After a still further term, all other\ndescriptions of people might receive it into common use. Too long a\npostponement, on the other hand, would increase the difficulties of its\nreception with the increase of our population.\n\n\n_Appendix, containing illustrations and developments of some passages\nof the preceding report._\n\n(1.) In the second pendulum with a spherical bob, call the distance\nbetween the centres of suspension and of the bob, 2x19.575, or 2d, and\nthe radius of the bob = _r_; then 2d:r::r: rr/2d and \u2156 of this last\nproportional expresses the displacement of the centre of oscillation, to\nwit: 2rr/5x2d=rr/5d. Two inches have been proposed as a proper diameter\nfor such a bob. In that case r will be = 1. inch, and _rr_/5d = 1/9787\ninches.\n\nIn the cylindrical second rod, call the length of the rod, 3 x 19.575.\nor 3d, and its radius = _r_ and _rr_/2x3d=_rr_/6d will express the\ndisplacement of the centre of oscillation. It is thought the rod will\nbe sufficiently inflexible if it be \u2155 of an inch in diameter. Then _r_\nwill be = .1 inch, and _rr_/6d = 1/11745 inches, which is but the 120th\npart of the displacement in the case of the pendulum with a spherical\nbob, and but the 689,710th part of the whole length of the rod. If the\nrod be even of half an inch diameter, the displacement will be but 1/1879\nof an inch, or 1/110356 of the length of the rod.\n\n(2.) Sir Isaac Newton computes the pendulum for 45\u00b0 to be 36 pouces\n8.428 lignes. Picard made the English foot 11 pouces 2.6 lignes, and\nDr. Maskelyne 11 pouces 3.11 lignes. D'Alembert states it at 11 pouces\n3 lignes, which has been used in these calculations as a middle term,\nand gives us 36 pouces 8.428 lignes = 39.1491 inches. This length for\nthe pendulum of 45\u00b0 had been adopted in this report before the Bishop\nof Autun's proposition was known here. He relies on Mairan's ratio for\nthe length of the pendulum in the latitude of Paris, to wit: 504:257::72\npouces to a 4th proportional, which will be 36.71428 pouces=39.1619\ninches, the length of the pendulum for latitude 48\u00b0 50'. The difference\nbetween this and the pendulum for 45\u00b0 is .0113 of an inch; so that\nthe pendulum for 45\u00b0 would be estimated, according to Mairan, at\n39.1619--.0113 = 39.1506 inches, almost precisely the same with Newton's\ncomputation herein adopted.\n\n(3.) Sir Isaac Newton's computations for the different degrees of\nlatitude, from 30\u00b0 to 45\u00b0, are as follows:\n\n Pieds. Lignes.\n 30\u00b0 3 7.948\n 35 3 8.099\n 40 3 8.261\n 41 3 8.294\n 42 3 8.327\n 43 3 8.361\n 44 3 8.394\n 45 3 8.428\n\n(4.) Or, more exactly, 144:175::224:272.2.\n\n(5.) Or, more exactly, 62.5:1728::77.7:2150.39.\n\n(6.) The merchant's weight.\n\n(7.) The Eng. rood contains 10,890 sq. feet = 104.355 feet sq.\n\n(8.) _The Measures, Weights, and Coins of the Decimal System, estimated\nin those of England, now used in the United States_.\n\n\n1. MEASURES OF LENGTH.\n\n Feet. Equivalent in English measure.\n The point, .001 .011 inch.\n\n The line, .01 .117\n\n The inch, .1 1.174, about 1/7 more than the Eng. inch.\n\n The foot, 1. } 11.744736 } about 1/48 less than the\n } .978728 feet, } English foot.\n\n The decad, 10. 9.787, about 1/48 less than the 10 feet\n rod of the carpenters.\n\n The rood, 100. 97.872, about 1/16 less than the side of\n an English square rood.\n\n The furlong, 1000. 978.728, about \u2153 more than the Eng. fur.\n\n The mile, 10000. 9787.28, about 1-6/7 English mile, nearly\n the Scotch and Irish mile, and \u00bd\n the German mile.\n\n\n2. SUPERFICIAL MEASURE.\n\n Roods.\n The hundredth, .01 95.69 square feet English.\n The tenth, .1 957.9\n The rood, 1. 9579.085\n The double acre, 10. 2.199, or say 2.2 acres English.\n The square furlong, 100. 22.\n\n\n3. MEASURE OF CAPACITY.\n\n Bushels. Cub. Inches\n The metre, .001 1.62\n\n The demi-pint, .01 16.2, about 1/24 less than the English\n half-pint.\n\n The pottle, .1 162.005, about \u2159 more than the English\n pottle.\n\n The bushel, 1. { 1620.05506862 }\n { .937531868414884352 cub feet. }\n about \u00bc less than the middle sized\n English bushel.\n\n The quarter, 10. 9.375, about \u2155 less than the Eng. qr.\n\n The last, 100. 93.753, about 1/7 more than the Eng. last.\n\n\n4. WEIGHTS.\n\n Pounds. Avoirdupois. Troy.\n Mite, .00001 .041 grains, about \u2155\n less than the English\n mite.\n\n Minim, or } .0001 .4101, about \u2155 less\n demi-grain, } than half-grain troy.\n\n Carat, .001 .4101, about 1/40 more\n than the carat troy.\n\n Double } .01 41.017, about 1/40\n scruple, } more than 2 scruples\n troy.\n\n Ounce, .1 { 9375318684148 } { 410.170192431\n { 84352 oz. } { .85452 oz.\n about 1/16 less than the ounce avoirdupois.\n\n Pound, 1. { 9.375 } .712101 lb., about \u00bc\n { .585957417759 lb. } less than the pound troy.\n\n Stone, 10. { 93.753 oz. } 7.121 about \u00bc less\n { 5.8595 lb. } than the English stone\n of 8 lbs. avoirdupois.\n\n Kental, 100. { 937.531 oz. } 71.21 about 4/10 less\n { 58.5957 lb. } than the English kental\n of 100 lbs. avoirdupois.\n\n Hogshead, 1000. { 9375.318 oz. } 712.101\n { 585.9574 lb. }\n\n\n5. COINS.\n\n Dollars.\n\n The mill, .001\n The cent, .01\n The dime, .1\n\n Troy grains.\n\n Dollar, 1. {375.98934306 pure silver.\n { 34.18084937 alloy.\n ------------\n Eagle, 10. 410.17019243\n\n_Postscript._\n\n January 10, 1791.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to observe that the measures, weights, and\ncoins, proposed in the preceding report, will be derived altogether from\nmechanical operations, viz.: A rod, vibrating seconds, divided into five\nequal parts, one of these subdivided, and multiplied decimally, for every\nmeasure of length, surface, and capacity, and these last filled with\nwater, to determine the weights and coins. The arithmetical estimates in\nthe report were intended only to give an idea of what the new measures,\nweights, and coins, would be nearly, when compared with the old. The\nlength of the standard or second rod, therefore, was assumed from that of\nthe pendulum; and as there has been small differences in the estimates\nof the pendulum by different persons, that of Sir Isaac Newton was\ntaken, the highest authority the world has yet known. But, if even he\nhas erred, the measures, weights, and coins proposed, will not be an atom\nthe more or less. In cubing the new foot, which was estimated at .978728\nof an English foot, or 11.744736 English inches, an arithmetical error\nof an unit happened in the fourth column of decimals, and was repeated\nin another line in the sixth column, so as to make the result one ten\nthousandth and one millionth of a foot too much. The thousandth part of\nthis error (about one ten millionth of a foot) consequently fell on the\nmetre of measure, the ounce weight, and the unit of money. In the last\nit made a difference of about the twenty-fifth part of a grain Troy, in\nweight, or the ninety-third of a cent in value. As it happened, this error\nwas on the favorable side, so that the detection of it approximates our\nestimate of the new unit exactly that much nearer to the old, and reduces\nthe difference between them to 34, instead of 38 hundredths of a grain\nTroy; that is to say, the money unit instead of 375.64 Troy grains of\npure silver, as established heretofore, will now be 375.98934306 grains,\nas far as our knowledge of the length of the second pendulum enables us\nto judge; and the current of authorities since Sir Isaac Newton's time,\ngives reason to believe that his estimate is more probably above than\nbelow the truth, consequently future corrections of it will bring the\nestimate of the new unit still nearer to the old.\n\nThe numbers in which the arithmetical error before mentioned showed\nitself in the table, at the end of the report, have been rectified, and\nthe table re-printed.\n\nThe head of superficial measures in the last part of the report, is\nthought to be not sufficiently developed. It is proposed that the rood\nof land, being 100 feet square, (and nearly a quarter of the present\nacre,) shall be the unit of land measure. This will naturally be divided\ninto tenths and hundredths, the latter of which will be a square decad.\nIts multiples will also, of course, be tens, which may be called double\nacres, and hundreds, which will be equal to a square furlong each. The\nsurveyor's chain should be composed of 100 links of one foot each.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [23] See Vol. I. p. 162.\n\n\nVIII.--_Opinion upon the question whether the President should veto the\nBill, declaring that the seat of government shall be transferred to the\nPotomac, in the year 1790._\n\n July 15, 1790.\n\nA bill having passed both houses of Congress, and being now before the\nPresident, declaring that the seat of the federal government shall be\ntransferred to the Potomac in the year 1790, that the session of Congress\nnext ensuing the present shall be held in Philadelphia, to which place\nthe offices shall be transferred before the 1st of December next, a\nwriter in a public paper of July 13, has urged on the consideration\nof the President, that the constitution has given to the two houses\nof Congress the exclusive right to adjourn themselves; that the will\nof the President mixed with theirs in a decision of this kind, would\nbe an inoperative ingredient, repugnant to the constitution, and that\nhe ought not to permit them to part, in a single instance, with their\nconstitutional rights; consequently, that he ought to negative the bill.\n\nThat is now to be considered.\n\nEvery man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of\nself-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature.\nIndividuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that\nof their majority; for the law of the _majority_ is the natural law of\nevery society of men. When a certain description of men are to transact\ntogether a particular business, the times and places of their meeting and\nseparating, depend on their own will; they make a part of the natural\nright of self-government. This, like all other natural rights, may be\nabridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the\nlaw of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others; but\nas far as it is not abridged or modified, they retain it as a natural\nright, and may exercise them in what form they please, either exclusively\nby themselves, or in association with others, or by others altogether,\nas they shall agree.\n\nEach house of Congress possesses this natural right of governing itself,\nand, consequently, of fixing its own times and places of meeting, so\nfar as it has not been abridged by the law of those who employ them,\nthat is to say, by the Constitution. This act manifestly considers them\nas possessing this right of course, and therefore has nowhere given it\nto them. In the several different passages where it touches this right,\nit treats it as an existing thing, not as one called into existence by\nthem. To evince this, every passage of the constitution shall be quoted,\nwhere the right of adjournment is touched; and it will be seen that no\none of them pretends to give that right; that, on the contrary, every\none is evidently introduced either to enlarge the right where it would\nbe too narrow, to restrain it where, in its natural and full exercise,\nit might be too large, and lead to inconvenience, to defend it from the\nlatitude of its own phrases, where these were not meant to comprehend\nit, or to provide for its exercise by others, when they cannot exercise\nit themselves.\n\n\"A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business; but\na smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to\ncompel the attendance of absent members.\" Art. 1. Sec. 5. A majority\nof every collection of men being naturally necessary to constitute its\nwill, and it being frequently to happen that a majority is not assembled,\nit was necessary to enlarge the natural right by giving to \"a smaller\nnumber than a majority\" a right to compel the attendance of the absent\nmembers, and, in the meantime, to adjourn from day to day. This clause,\nthen, does not pretend to give to a majority a right which it knew that\nmajority would have of themselves, but to a number _less than a majority_,\na right to which it knew that lesser number could not have of themselves.\n\n\"Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the\nconsent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other\nplace than that in which the two houses shall be sitting.\" Ibid. Each\nhouse exercising separately its natural right to meet when and where it\nshould think best, it might happen that the two houses would separate\neither in time or place, which would be inconvenient. It was necessary,\ntherefore, to keep them together by restraining their natural right of\ndeciding on separate times and places, and by requiring a concurrence\nof will.\n\nBut, as it might happen that obstinacy, or a difference of object, might\nprevent this concurrence, it goes on to take from them, in that instance,\nthe right of adjournment altogether, and to transfer it to another, by\ndeclaring, Art. 2, Sec. 3, that \"in case of disagreement between the\ntwo houses, with respect to the time of adjournment, the President may\nadjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.\"\n\nThese clauses, then, do not import a gift, to the two houses, of a general\nright of adjournment, which it was known they would have without that\ngift, but to restrain or abrogate the right it was known they would have,\nin an instance where, exercised in its full extent, it might lead to\ninconvenience, and to give that right to another who would not naturally\nhave had it. It also gives to the President a right, which he otherwise\nwould not have had, \"to convene both houses, or either of them, on\nextraordinary occasions.\" Thus substituting the will of another, where\nthey are not in a situation to exercise their own.\n\n\"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate\nand House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of\nadjournment), shall be presented to the President for his approbation,\n&c.\" Art. 1, Sec. 7. The latitude of the general words here used would\nhave subjected the natural right of adjournment of the two houses to the\nwill of the President, which was not intended. They therefore expressly\n\"except questions of adjournment\" out of their operation. They do not\nhere give a right of adjournment, which it was known would exist without\ntheir gift, but they defend the existing right against the latitude of\ntheir own phrases, in a case where there was no good reason to abridge\nit. The exception admits they will have the right of adjournment, without\npointing out the source from which they will derive it.\n\nThese are all the passages of the constitution (one only excepted, which\nshall be presently cited) where the right of adjournment is touched;\nand it is evident that none of these are introduced to give that right;\nbut every one supposes it to be existing, and provides some specific\nmodification for cases where either a defeat in the natural right, or\na too full use of it, would occasion inconvenience.\n\nThe right of adjournment, then, is not given by the constitution, and\nconsequently it may be modified by law without interfering with that\ninstrument. It is a natural right, and, like all other natural rights,\nmay be abridged or regulated in its exercise by law; and the concurrence\nof the third branch in any law regulating its exercise is so efficient\nan ingredient in that law, that the right cannot be otherwise exercised\nbut after a repeal by a new law. The express terms of the constitution\nitself show that this right may be modified _by law_, when, in Art. 1,\nSec. 4. (the only remaining passage on the subject not yet quoted) it\nsays, \"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such\nmeeting shall be the first Monday in December, unless they shall, _by\nlaw_, appoint a different day.\" Then another day may be appointed _by\nlaw_; and the President's assent is an efficient ingredient in that law.\nNay further, they cannot adjourn over the first Monday of December but\nby _a law_. This is another constitutional abridgment of their natural\nright of adjournment; and completing our review of all the clauses in\nthe constitution which touch that right, authorizes us to say no part\nof that instrument gives it; and that the houses hold it, not from the\nconstitution, but from nature.\n\nA consequence of this is, that the houses may, by a joint resolution,\nremove themselves from place to place, because it is a part of their\nright of self-government; but that as the right of self-government does\nnot comprehend the government of others, the two houses cannot, by a\njoint resolution of their majorities only, remove the executive and\njudiciary from place to place. These branches possessing also the rights\nof self-government from nature, cannot be controlled in the exercise of\nthem but by a law, passed in the forms of the constitution. The clause\nof the bill in question, therefore, was necessary to be put into the form\nof a law, and to be submitted to the President, so far as it proposes to\neffect the removal of the Executive and Judiciary to Philadelphia. So far\nas respects the removal of the present houses of legislation thither, it\nwas not necessary to be submitted to the President; but such a submission\nis not repugnant to the constitution. On the contrary, if he concurs,\nit will so far fix the next session of Congress at Philadelphia that it\ncannot be changed but by a regular law.\n\nThe sense of Congress itself is always respectable authority. It has been\ngiven very remarkably on the present subject. The address to the President\nin the paper of the 13th is a complete digest of all the arguments urged\non the floor of the Representatives against the constitutionality of the\nbill now before the President; and they were overruled by a majority of\nthat house, comprehending the delegation of all the States south of the\nHudson, except South Carolina. At the last session of Congress, when\nthe bill for remaining a certain term at New York, and then removing\nto Susquehanna or Germantown was objected to on the same ground, the\nobjection was overruled by a majority comprehending the delegations of\nthe northern half of the union with that of South Carolina. So that the\nsense of every State in the union has been expressed, by its delegation,\nagainst this objection South Carolina excepted, and excepting also Rhode\nIsland, which has never yet had a delegation in place to vote on the\nquestion. In both these instances, the Senate concurred with the majority\nof the Representatives. The sense of the two houses is stronger authority\nin this case, as it is given against their own supposed privilege.\n\nIt would be as tedious, as it is unnecessary, to take up and discuss one\nby one, the objections proposed in the paper of July 13. Every one of\nthem is founded on the supposition that the two houses hold their right\nof adjournment from the constitution. This error being corrected, the\nobjections founded on it fall of themselves.\n\nIt would also be work of mere supererogation to show that, granting\nwhat this writer takes for granted (that the President's assent would\nbe an inoperative ingredient, because excluded by the constitution, as\nhe says), yet the particular views of the writer would be frustrated,\nfor on every hypothesis of what the President may do, Congress must go\nto Philadelphia. 1. If he assents to the bill, that assent makes good\nlaw of the part relative to the Patomac; and the part for holding the\nnext session at Philadelphia is good, either as an ordinance, or a vote\nof the two houses, containing a complete declaration of their will in\na case where it is competent to the object; so that they must go to\nPhiladelphia in that case. 2. If he dissents from the bill it annuls\nthe part relative to the Patomac; but as to the clause for adjourning\nto Philadelphia, his dissent being as inefficient as his assent, it\nremains a good ordinance or vote, of the two houses for going thither,\nand consequently they must go in this case also. 3. If the President\nwithholds his will out of the bill altogether, by a ten days' silence,\nthen the part relative to the Potomac becomes a good law without his\nwill, and that relative to Philadelphia is good also, either as a law,\nor an ordinance, or a vote of the two houses; and consequently in this\ncase also they go to Philadelphia.\n\n\nIX.--_Opinion respecting the expenses and salaries of foreign Ministers._\n\n July 17, 1790.\n\nThe bill on the intercourse with foreign nations restrains the President\nfrom allowing to Ministers Plenipotentiary, or to Congress, more than\n$9,000, and $4,500 for their \"personal services, and other expenses.\"\nThis definition of the objects for which the allowance is provided\nappearing vague, the Secretary of State thought it his duty to confer\nwith the gentlemen heretofore employed as ministers in Europe, to\nobtain from them, in aid of his own information, an enumeration of the\nexpenses incident to these offices, and their opinion which of them\nwould be included within the fixed salary, and which would be entitled\nto be charged separately. He, therefore, asked a conference with the\nVice-President, who was acquainted with the residences of London and the\nHague, and the Chief Justice, who was acquainted with that of Madrid,\nwhich took place yesterday.\n\nThe Vice-President, Chief Justice, and Secretary of State, concurred in\nthe opinion that the salaries named by the act are much below those of\nthe same grade at the courts of Europe, and less than the public good\nrequires they should be. Consequently, that the expenses not included\nwithin the definition of the law, should be allowed as an additional\ncharge.\n\n1. _Couriers, Gazettes, Translating necessary papers, Printing necessary\npapers, Aids to poor Americans._--All three agreed that these ought to\nbe allowed as additional charges, not included within the meaning of\nthe phrase, \"his personal services, and other expenses.\"\n\n2. _Postage, Stationary, Court-fees._--One of the gentlemen being of\nopinion that the phrase \"personal services, and other expenses,\" was\nmeant to comprehend all the _ordinary expenses_ of the office, considered\nthis second class of expenses as _ordinary_, and therefore included in\nthe fixed salary. The first class before mentioned, he had viewed as\n_extraordinary_. The other two gentlemen were of opinion this second\nclass was also out of the definition, and might be allowed in addition to\nthe salary. One of them, particularly, considered the phrase as meaning\n\"personal services and personal expenses,\" that is, expenses for his\npersonal accommodation, comforts, and maintenance. This second class of\nexpenses is not within that description.\n\n3. _Ceremonies;_ such as diplomatic and public dinners, galas, and\nilluminations. One gentleman only was of opinion these might be allowed.\n\nThe expenses of the first class may probably amount to about fifty dollars\na year. Those of the second, to about four or five hundred dollars. Those\nof the third are so different at different courts, and so indefinite in\nall of them, that no general estimate can be proposed.\n\nThe Secretary of State thought it his duty to lay this information before\nthe President, supposing it might be satisfactory to himself, as well\nas to the diplomatic gentlemen, to leave nothing uncertain as to their\nallowances; and because, too, a previous determination is in some degree\nnecessary to the forming an estimate which may not exceed the whole sum\nappropriated.\n\nThe Secretary of State has also consulted on the subject of the Morocco\nconsulship, with Mr. Barclay, who furnished him with the note, of which\na copy accompanies this. Considering all circumstances, Mr. Barclay is\nof opinion, we had better have only a consul there, and that he should be\nthe one now residing at Morocco, because, as secretary to the Emperor, he\nsees him every day, and possesses his ear. He is of opinion six hundred\ndollars a year might suffice for him, and that it should be proposed to\nhim not as a salary, but as a sum in gross intended to cover his expenses,\nand to save the trouble of keeping accounts. That this consul should be\nauthorized to appoint agents in the seaports, who would be sufficiently\npaid by the consignments of vessels. He thinks the consul at Morocco\nwould most conveniently receive his allowance through the channel of\nour Charg\u00e9 at Madrid, on whom, also, this consulate had better be made\ndependent for instructions, information, and correspondence, because of\nthe daily intercourse between Morocco and Cadiz.\n\nThe Secretary of State, on a view of Mr. Barclay's note, very much\ndoubts the sufficiency of the sum of six hundred dollars; he supposes a\nlittle money there may save a great deal; but he is unable to propose any\nspecific augmentation till a view of the whole diplomatic establishments\nand its expenses, may furnish better grounds for it.\n\n[Appended to this note, were the following estimate of the expenses\nof foreign ministers, and of the probable calls on our foreign fund,\nfrom July 1, 1790, to July 1, 1791.--ED.]\n\n\n_Estimate of the Expenses of a Minister Plenipotentiary._\n\n July 19, 1790.\n\n Minister Plenipotentiary, his salary $9,000\n His outfit, suppose it to happen once in seven years,\n will average 1,285\n His return at a quarter's salary will average 321\n Extras, viz.: Gazettes, Translating, Printing, Aids to poor\n American sailors, Couriers, and Postage, about 350\n His Secretary 1,350\n -------\n $12,396\n\n\n_Estimate for a Charg\u00e9 des Affaires._\n\n Charg\u00e9 des Affaires, his salary $4,500\n His outfit, once in seven years, equal to an annual sum of 643\n His return at a quarter's salary, do 161\n Extras, as above 350\n ------\n $5,654\n\n The Agent at the Hague, his salary $1,300\n Extras 100\n -----\n $1,400\n\n\n_Estimate of the Annual Expenses of the Establishment proposed._\n\n France, a Minister Plenipotentiary $12,306\n London, do. do. 12,306\n Madrid, a Charg\u00e9 des Affaires 5,654\n Lisbon, do. do. do. 5,654\n Hague, an agent 1,400\n Morocco, a consul 1,800\n Presents to foreign ministers on taking leave, at $1,000\n each, more or less, according to their favor and time.\n There will be five of them. If exchanged once in seven\n years, it will be annually 715\n -----\n\n $39,835\n\n\n_Estimate of the probable calls on our foreign fund from July 1, 1790,\nwhen the act for foreign intercourse passed, to July 1, 1791._\n\n France, a Minister Plenipotentiary, his outfit $9,000\n His salary, suppose it to commence August 1st 8,250\n Extras 320\n Secretary 1,237.5 - $18,807.5\n Charg\u00e9, suppose him to remain till November 1st. Salary 1,500\n Extras 117\n His return, a quarter's salary 1,125 - 2,742\n Madrid, a Charg\u00e9, his salary 4,500\n Extras 350 - 4,850\n Lisbon, a Charg\u00e9, (or Resident,) his outfit 4,500\n His salary, suppose it to commence January 1, 1791 2,250\n Extras 175 - 6,925\n London, an Agent, suppose to commence October 1st, at\n $1,350 salary 1,012.5\n Extras, (at $100 a year) 75 - 1,087.5\n Hague, an Agent 1,400\n Morocco, Consul 1,800 - 3,200\n Presents to foreign Ministers. The dye about 500\n Two medals and chains 2,000 - 2,500\n ---------\n $40,112\n\n\nX.--_Opinion in regard to the continuance of the monopoly of the commerce\nof the Creek nation, enjoyed by Col. McGillivray_:\n\n July 29th, 1790.\n\nColonel McGillivray, with a company of British merchants, having hitherto\nenjoyed a monopoly of the commerce of the Creek nation, with a right\nof importing their goods duty free, and considering these privileges\nas the principal sources of his power over that nation, is unwilling to\nenter into treaty with us, unless they can be continued to him. And the\nquestion is how this may be done consistently with our laws, and so as\nto avoid just complaints from those of our citizens who would wish to\nparticipate of the trade?\n\nOur citizens, at this time, are not permitted to trade in that nation.\nThe nation has a right to give us their peace, and to withhold their\ncommerce, to place it under whatever monopolies or regulations they\nplease. If they insist that only Colonel McGillivray and his company\nshall be permitted to trade among them, we have no right to say the\ncontrary. We shall even gain some advantage in substituting citizens of\nthe United States instead of British subjects, as associates of Colonel\nMcGillivray, and excluding both British and Spaniards from the country.\n\nSuppose, then, it be expressly stipulated by treaty, that no person\nbe permitted to trade in the Creek country, without a license from the\nPresident, that but a fixed number shall be permitted to trade there at\nall, and that the goods imported for and sent to the Creek nation, shall\nbe duty free. It may further be either expressed that the person licensed\nshall be approved by the leader or leaders of the nation, or without\nthis, it may be understood between the President and McGillivray that the\nstipulated number of licenses shall be sent to him blank, to fill up. A\ntreaty made by the President, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the\nSenate, is a law of the land, and a law of superior order, because it not\nonly repeals past laws, but cannot itself be repealed by future ones.[24]\nThe treaty, then, will legally control the duty acts, and the acts for\nlicensing traders, in this particular instance. When a citizen applies\nfor a license, who is not of McGillivray's partnership, he will be told\nthat but a given number could be licensed by the treaty, and that the\nnumber is full. It seems that in this way no law will be violated, and\nno just cause of complaint will be given; on the contrary, the treaty\nwill have bettered our situation, though not in the full degree which\nmight have been wished.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [24] [At a later period, upon reviewing this opinion, the\n following note was appended by Mr. Jefferson.--Ed.--viz.]\n \"Unless with the consent or default of the other\n contracting party. It may well be doubted, too, and perhaps\n denied, that the treaty power can control a law. The\n question here proposed was then of the first impression.\n Subsequent investigations have proved that the contrary\n position is the more general truth.\"\n\n\nXI.--_Opinion respecting our foreign debt._\n\n August 26, 1790.\n\nOn consideration of the letter of our banker, of January 25th, 1790, the\nSecretary of the Treasury's answer to it, and the draught of powers and\ninstructions to him, I am of opinion, as I always have been, that the\npurchase of our debt to France by private speculators, would have been\nan operation extremely injurious to our credit; and that the consequence\nforeseen by our banker, that the purchasers would have been obliged, in\norder to make good their payments, to deluge the markets of Amsterdam\nwith American paper of all sorts, and to sell it at any price, was a\nprobable one. And the more so, as we know that the particular individuals\nwho were engaged in that speculation, possess no means of their own\nadequate to the payments they would have had to make. While we must\nnot doubt that these motives, together with a proper regard for the\ncredit of the United States, had real and full weight with our bankers,\ntowards inducing them to counterwork these private speculations; yet, to\nascribe their industry in this business wholly to these motives, might\nlead to a too great and dangerous confidence in them. It was obviously\ntheir interest to defeat all such speculations, because they tended to\ntake out of their hands, or at least to divide with them, the profits\nof the great operation of transferring the French debt to Amsterdam, an\nobject of first rate magnitude to them, and on the undivided enjoyments\nof which they might count, if private speculators could be baffled. It\nhas been a contest of dexterity and cunning, in which our champions have\nobtained the victory. The man\u0153uvre of opening a loan of three millions\nof florins, has, on the whole, been useful to the United States, and\nthough unauthorized, I think should be confirmed. The measure proposed\nby the Secretary of the Treasury, of sending a superintendent of their\nfuture operations, will effectually prevent their doing the like again,\nand the funding laws leave no danger that such an expedient might at\nany future time be useful to us.\n\nThe report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the draught of\ninstructions, present this plan to view: First, to borrow on the best\nterms we can, not exceeding those limited by the law, such a sum as may\nanswer all demands of principal or interest of the foreign debts, due,\nor to become due before the end of 1791. [This I think he supposes will\nbe about three and a half millions of dollars.] Second, to consider two\nof the three millions of florins already borrowed by our bankers as,\nso far, an execution of this operation; consequently, that there will\nremain but about two and a half millions of dollars to be borrowed on\nthe old terms. Third, to borrow no more as yet, towards completing the\ntransfer of the French debt to Amsterdam, unless we can do it on more\nadvantageous terms. Fourth, to consider the third millions of florins\nalready borrowed by our bankers, as, so far, an execution of the powers\ngiven the President to borrow two millions of dollars, by the act of the\n12th of August. The whole of this appears to me to be wise. If the third\nmillion be employed in buying up our _foreign paper_, on the exchange\nof Amsterdam, by creating a demand for that species of paper, it will\nexcite a cupidity in the monied men to obtain more of it by new loans,\nand consequently enable us to borrow more and on lower terms. The saving\nof interest, too, on the sum so to be bought, may be applied in buying\nup more principal, and thereby keep this salutary operation going.\n\nI would only take the liberty of suggesting the insertion of some\nsuch clause as the following, into the instructions: \"The agents to be\nemployed shall never open a loan for more than one million of dollars at\na time, nor open a new loan till the preceding one has been filled, and\nexpressly approved by the President of the United States.\" A new man,\nalighting on the exchange of Amsterdam, with powers to borrow twelve\nmillions of dollars, will be immediately beset with bankers and brokers,\nwho will pour into his ear, from the most unsuspected quarters, such\ninformations and suspicions as may lead him exactly into their snares.\nSo wonderfully dexterous are they in wrapping up and complicating their\npropositions, they will make it evident, even to a clear-headed man, (not\nin the habit of this business,) that two and two make five. The agent,\ntherefore, should be guarded, even against himself, by putting it out\nof his power to extend the effect of any erroneous calculation beyond\none million of dollars. Were he able, under a delusive calculation, to\ncommit such a sum as twelve millions of dollars, what would be said of the\ngovernment? Our bankers told me themselves that they would not choose,\nin the conduct of this great loan, to open for more than two or three\nmillions of florins at a time, and certainly never for more than five.\nBy contracting for only one million of dollars at a time, the agent will\nhave frequent occasions of trying to better the terms. I dare say that\nthis caution, though not expressed in the instructions, is intended by\nthe Secretary of the Treasury to be carried into their execution. But,\nperhaps, it will be desirable for the President, that his sense of it\nalso should be expressed in writing.\n\n\nXII.--_Opinion upon the question what the answer of the President\nshould be in case Lord Dorchester should apply for permission to march\ntroops through the territory of the United States, from Detroit to the\nMississippi._\n\nGEORGE WASHINGTON TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.\n\n UNITED STATES, August 27, 1790.\n\nProvided the dispute between Great Britain and Spain should come to\nthe decision of arms, from a variety of circumstances (individually\nunimportant and inconclusive, but very much the reverse when compared\nand combined,) there is no doubt in my mind, that New Orleans, and\nthe Spanish posts above it on the Mississippi, will be among the first\nattempts of the former; and that the reduction of them will be undertaken\nby a combined operation from Detroit.\n\nThe _consequences_ of having so formidable and enterprizing a people\nas the British on both our flanks and rear, with their navy in front,\nas they respect our western settlements which may be seduced thereby,\nas they regard the security of the Union and its commerce with the West\nIndies, are too obvious to need enumeration.\n\nWhat then should be the answer of the Executive of the United States to\nLord Dorchester, in case he should apply for permission to march troops\nthrough the territory of the said States from Detroit to the Mississippi?\n\nWhat notice ought be taken of the measure, if it should be undertaken\nwithout leave, which is the most probable proceeding of the two?\n\nThe opinion of the Secretary of State is requested in writing upon the\nabove statements.\n\n\n_Opinion on the questions stated in the President's note of August 27th,\n1790._\n\n August 28, 1790.\n\nI am so deeply impressed with the magnitude of the dangers which will\nattend our government, if Louisiana and the Floridas be added to the\nBritish empire, that, in my opinion, we ought to make ourselves parties\nin the _general war_ expected to take place, should this be the only\nmeans of preventing the calamity.\n\nBut I think we should defer this step as long as possible; because war is\nfull of chances, which may relieve us from the necessity of interfering;\nand if necessary, still the later we interfere, the better we shall be\nprepared.\n\nIt is often indeed more easy to prevent the capture of a place, than\nto retake it. Should it be so in the case in question, the difference\nbetween the two operations of preventing and retaking, will not be so\ncostly as two, three, or four years more of war.\n\nSo that I am for preserving neutrality as long, and entering into the\nwar as late, as possible.\n\nIf this be the best course, it decides, in a good degree, what should\nbe our conduct, if the British ask leave to march troops through our\nterritory, or march them without leave.\n\nIt is well enough agreed, in the laws of nations, that for a neutral power\nto give or refuse permission to the troops of either belligerent party\nto pass through their territory, is no breach of neutrality, provided\nthe same refusal or permission be extended to the other party.\n\nIf we give leave of passage then to the British troops, Spain will have\nno just cause of complaint against us, provided we extend the same leave\nto her when demanded.\n\nIf we refuse, (as indeed we have a right to do,) and the troops should\npass notwithstanding, of which there can be little doubt, we shall stand\ncommitted. For either we must enter immediately into the war, or pocket\nan acknowledged insult in the face of the world; and one insult pocketed\nsoon produces another.\n\nThere is indeed a middle course, which I should be inclined to prefer;\nthat is, to avoid giving any answer. They will proceed notwithstanding,\nbut to do this under our silence, will admit of palliation, and produce\napologies, from military necessity; and will leave us free to pass it\nover without dishonor, or to make it a handle of quarrel hereafter, if\nwe should have use for it as such. But, if we are obliged to give an\nanswer, I think the occasion not such as should induce us to hazard that\nanswer which might commit us to the war at so early a stage of it; and\ntherefore that the passage should be permitted.\n\nIf they should pass without having asked leave, I should be for expressing\nour dissatisfaction to the British court, and keeping alive an altercation\non the subject, till events should decide whether it is most expedient\nto accept their apologies, or profit of the aggression as a cause of war.\n\n\nXIII.--_Opinion on the question whether it will be expedient to notify to\nLord Dorchester the real object of the expedition preparing by Governor\nSt. Clair._\n\n August 29, 1790.\n\nOn considering more fully the question whether it will be expedient to\nnotify to Lord Dorchester the real object of the expedition preparing\nby Governor St. Clair, I still think it will not be expedient. For,\nif the notification be early, he will get the Indians out of the way,\nand defeat our object. If it be so late as not to leave him time to\nwithdraw them before our stroke be struck, it will then be so late also\nas not to leave him time to withdraw any secret aids he may have sent\nthem. And the notification will betray to him that he may go on without\nfear in his expedition against the Spaniards, and for which he may yet\nhave sufficient time after our expedition is over. On the other hand,\nif he should suspect our preparations are to prevent his passing our\nterritory, these suspicions may induce him to decline his expedition,\nas, even should he think he could either force or steal a passage, he\nwould not divide his troops, leaving (as he would suppose) an enemy\nbetween them able to take those he should leave, and cut off the return\nof those he should carry. These suspicions, too, would mislead both him\nand the Indians, and so enable us to take the latter more completely by\nsurprise, and prevent him from sending secret aid to those whom he would\nnot suppose the objects of the enterprise; thus effecting a double purpose\nof preventing his enterprise, and securing our own. Might it not even\nbe expedient, with a view to deter his enterprise, to instruct Governor\nSt. Clair either to continue his pursuit of the Indians till the season\nbe too far advanced for Lord Dorchester to move; or, on disbanding his\nmilitia, to give them general orders (which might reach the ears of Lord\nDorchester) to be ready to assemble at a moment's warning, though no\nsuch assembly be really intended?\n\nAlways taking care neither to say nor do, against their passage, what\nmight directly commit either our peace or honor.\n\n\nXIV.--_Opinion on proceedings to be had under the Residence act._\n\n November 29, 1790.\n\nA territory not exceeding ten miles square (or, I presume, one hundred\nsquare miles in any form) to be located by metes and bounds.\n\nThree commissioners to be appointed. I suppose them not entitled to any\nsalary.\n\n[If they live near the place they may, in some instances, be influenced\nby self interest, and partialities; but they will push the work with\nzeal. If they are from a distance, and northwardly, they will be more\nimpartial, but may affect delays.]\n\nThe commissioners to purchase or accept \"such quantity of land on the\neast side of the river as the President shall deem _proper for the United\nStates_,\" viz., for the federal Capitol, the offices, the President's\nhouse and gardens, the town house, market house, public walks and\nhospital. For the President's house, offices and gardens, I should think\ntwo squares should be consolidated. For the Capitol and offices, one\nsquare. For the market, one square. For the public walks, nine squares\nconsolidated.\n\nThe expression \"such quantity of land as the President shall deem _proper\nfor the United States_,\" is vague. It may therefore be extended to the\nacceptance or purchase of land enough for the town; and I have no doubt\nit is the wish, and perhaps expectation. In that case, it will be to\nbe laid out in lots and streets. I should propose these to be at right\nangles, as in Philadelphia, and that no street be narrower than one\nhundred feet, with foot ways of fifteen feet. Where a street is long and\nlevel, it might be one hundred and twenty feet wide. I should prefer\nsquares of at least two hundred yards every way, which will be about\neight acres each.\n\nThe commissioners should have some taste in architecture, because they\nmay have to decide between different plans.\n\nThey will, however, be subject to the President's direction in every point.\n\nWhen the President shall have made up his mind as to the spot for the\ntown, would there be any impropriety in his saying to the neighboring\nland holders, \"I will fix the town here if you will join and purchase\nand give the lands.\" They may well afford it by the increase of value\nit will give to their own circumjacent lands.\n\nThe lots to be sold out in breadths of fifty feet; their depths to extend\nto the diagonal of the square.\n\nI doubt much whether the obligation to build the houses at a given\ndistance from the street, contributes to its beauty. It produces a\ndisgusting monotony; all persons make this complaint against Philadelphia.\nThe contrary practice varies the appearance, and is much more convenient\nto the inhabitants.\n\nIn Paris it is forbidden to build a house beyond a given height; and it\nis admitted to be a good restriction. It keeps down the price of ground,\nkeeps the houses low and convenient, and the streets light and airy.\nFires are much more manageable where houses are low.\n\n\nXV.--_Report by the Secretary of State to the President of the United\nStates on the Report of the Secretary of the Government north-west of\nthe Ohio._\n\n December 14, 1790.\n\nThe Secretary of State having had under his consideration the report\nmade by the Secretary of the Government north-west of the Ohio, of his\nproceedings for carrying into effect the resolution of Congress of August\n29th, 1788, respecting the lands of the inhabitants of Port Vincennes,\nmakes the following report thereon to the President of the United States:\n\nThe resolution of Congress of August 29th, 1788, had confirmed in their\npossessions and titles the French and Canadian inhabitants and other\nsettlers at that post, who, in or before the year 1783, had settled\nthere, and had professed themselves citizens of the United States or\nany of them, and had made a donation to every head of a family, of the\nsame description of four hundred acres of land, part of a square to be\nlaid off adjoining the improvements at the post.\n\nThe Secretary of the north-western government, in the absence of the\nGovernor, has carried this resolution into effect, as to all the claims\nto which he thought it could be clearly applied: there remain, however,\nthe following description of cases, on which he asks further instructions:\n\n1. Certain cases within the letter of the resolution, but rendered\ndoubtful by the condition annexed, to the grants of lands in the Illinois\ncountry. The cases of these claimants, fifteen in number, are specially\nstated in the papers hereto annexed, number 2, and the lands are laid\noff for them but remain ungranted till further orders.\n\n2. Certain persons who, by removals from one part of the territory to\nanother, are not of the letter of the resolutions, but within its equity,\nas they conceive.\n\n3. Certain heads of families, who became such soon after the year 1783,\nwho petition for a participation of the donation, and urge extraordinary\nmilitia service to which they are exposed.\n\n4. One hundred and fifty acres of land within the village granted under\nthe former government of that country, to the Piankeshaw Indians, and\non their removal sold by them in parcels to individual inhabitants, who\nin some instances have highly improved them both before and since the\nyear 1783.\n\n5. Lands granted both before and after 1783, by authority from the\ncommandant of the post, who, according to the usage under the French\nand British governments, thinking himself authorized to grant lands,\ndelegated that authority to a court of civil and criminal jurisdiction,\nwhose grants before 1783, amount to twenty-six thousand acres, and between\nthat and 1787, (when the practice was stopped,) to twenty-two thousand\nacres. They are generally in parcels from four hundred acres down to\nthe size of house lots; and some of them under considerable improvement.\nSome of the tenants urge that they were induced by the court itself to\ncome and settle these lands under assurance of their authority to grant\nthem, and that a loss of the lands and improvements will involve them in\nruin. Besides these small grants, there are some much larger, sometimes\nof many leagues square, which a sense of their impropriety has prevented\nthe grantees from bringing forward. Many pretended grants, too, of this\nclass are believed to be forgeries, and are, therefore, to be guarded\nagainst.\n\n6. Two thousand four hundred acres of good land, and three thousand acres\nof sunken land, held under the French, British, and American governments,\nas commons for the use of the inhabitants of the village generally, and\nfor thirty years past kept under inclosure for these purposes.\n\nThe legislature alone being competent to authorize the grant of lands\nin cases as yet unprovided for by the laws. The Secretary of State is of\nopinion that the report of the Secretary of the north-western government,\nwith the papers therein referred to, should be laid before Congress for\ntheir determination. Authentic copies of them are herewith enclosed to\nthe President of the United States.\n\n\nXVI.--_Opinion on certain proceedings of the Executive in the\nNorth-western Territory._\n\n December 14, 1790.\n\nThe Secretary of State having had under his consideration, the journal\nof the proceedings of the Executive in the North-western Territory,\nthinks it his duty to extract therefrom, for the notice of the President\nof the United States, the articles of April 25th, June 6th, 28th, and\n29th. Some of which are hereto annexed.\n\nConceiving that the regulations, purported in these articles, are\nbeyond the competence of the executive of the said government, that they\namount, in fact, to laws, and as such, could only flow from its regular\nlegislature. That it is the duty of the general government to guard its\nsubordinate members from the encroachments of each other, even when they\nare made through error or inadvertence, and to cover its citizens from\nthe exercise of powers not authorized by the law. The Secretary of State\nis of opinion that the said articles be laid before the Attorney General\nfor consideration, and if he finds them to be against law, that his\nopinion be communicated to the Governor of the North-western Territory,\nfor his future conduct.\n\n[The following are the extracts alluded to above.]\n\n_Extracts from the Journal of the Proceedings in the Executive\nDepartment of government in the Territory of the United States, north-west\nof the Ohio, reported to the President of the United States, by Winthrop\nSargent, Secretary._\n\nApril 25, 1790.--The governor was pleased to issue the following order,\nviz.: All the inhabitants are forbidden to entertain any strangers, white,\nIndian, or negro, let them come from whatsoever place, without acquainting\nthe officer commanding the troops, of the names of such strangers, and\nthe place from whence they came. And every stranger arriving at Cahokia,\nis ordered to present himself to said officer within two hours after\nhis arrival, on pain of imprisonment.\n\nJune 6, 1790.--The Governor at Kaskaskias, was pleased to make the\nfollowing proclamation:\n\nThe practice of selling spirituous liquors to the Indians in the villages\nbeing attended with very ill consequences, it is expressly prohibited;\nand all and every person transgressing this order, will be liable to\nbe tried and fined at the pleasure of the court of quarter sessions of\nthe peace. And as it may be necessary that spirituous liquors should be\nvended in small quantities to white travellers and others; to prevent\nall danger of imposition and extortion, no person whosoever shall sell\nin any of the villages or their environs, spirituous liquors to any\nwhite person, traveller, or inhabitant, in any quantity less than one\nquart at one time, without obtaining a license from the governor, which\nlicense shall not be granted but upon the recommendation of the Justices\nof the Peace in their court of quarter sessions, and on his or their\ngiving security in the sum of two hundred dollars, to abide by all the\nregulations made by law respecting retailers of spirituous liquors,\nand the orders of the said court of quarter sessions in the premises\nin the meantime. And for every offence, he or they shall be liable to\nprosecution by indictment and fine at the pleasure of the court, and to\nthe forfeiture of their bonds.\n\nNor shall any person undertake or exercise the calling or occupation of\nan Inn-holder or Tavern-keeper, without obtaining in the same manner,\nand under the same restrictions and penalties, a license for so doing.\n\nPROCLAMATION.--Whereas, his Excellency, Arthur St. Clair, Esq., governor\nand commander-in-chief of this Territory, did by proclamation given\nat the Kaskaskias the 10th instant, strictly prohibit all persons, not\ncitizens of the United States or the Territory, from hunting or killing\nany kind of game within the same, either for the flesh or skins, upon\npenalty _not only_ of forfeiting the flesh and skins which they might\nacquire, but also prosecution and punishment as trespassers.\n\nAnd it appearing to me to be particularly essential to the interests\nof this country, that an observance of the order and prohibition should\nbe obtained, I do hereby call upon all civil and military officers, who\nnow are, or hereafter may be appointed, to use their best endeavors for\ndetecting and bringing to justice every person who shall violate the\nsame. And, whereas, it appears to me to be expedient that government\nshould receive information of all characters, foreigners and others,\ncoming into the Territory, I do hereby order and direct that any person\narriving at this, or any of the military posts of the United States\nwithin the same, should present himself to the commanding officer of\nthe troops in two hours next after his arrival; and the inhabitants are\nhereby forbidden to entertain such characters, whether whites, Indians,\nor negroes, without immediate information thereof to the said commanding\nofficers.\n\nGiven under my hand and seal at the town of Post Vincennes, and county\nof Knox, this 28th day of June, A. D. 1790, and of the Independence of\nthe United States, the fourteenth.\n\n (Signed,)\n WINTHROP SARGENT.\n\nJune 29, 1790.--It is to be considered as a standing order hereafter,\nthat no person enrolled in the militia shall leave the village or\nstations, for a longer absence than twenty-four hours, without informing\nhim (Mayor Hamtramck) or the commanding officer for the time being, of\ntheir intention. And all intelligence or discoveries of Indians, to be\nimmediately reported.\n\n (Signed,)\n WINTHROP SARGENT.\n\n\n\nXVII.--_Report on certain letters from the President to Mr. Gouverneur\nMorris, and from Mr. Morris to the President, relative to our difficulties\nwith England_--1790.\n\n December 15, 1790.\n\nThe Secretary of State having had under consideration the two letters\nof October 13th, 1789, from the President of the United States, to Mr.\nGouverneur Morris; and those of Mr. Morris to the President, of January\n22d, April 7th, 13th, May 1st, 29th, July 3d, August 16th, and September\n18th, referred to him by the President, makes the following report\nthereon:\n\nThe President's letter of January 22d, authorized Mr. Morris to enter\ninto conference with the British ministers in order to discover their\nsentiments on the following subjects:\n\n1. Their retention of the western posts contrary to the treaty of peace.\n\n2. Indemnification for the negroes carried off against the stipulations\nof the same treaty.\n\n3. A treaty for the regulation of the commerce between the two countries.\n\n4. The exchange of a minister.\n\nThe letters of Mr. Morris before mentioned, state the communications,\noral and written, which have passed between him and the ministers; and\nfrom these the Secretary of State draws the following inferences:\n\n1. That the British court is decided not to surrender the posts in any\nevent; and that they will urge as a pretext that though our courts of\njustice are now open to British subjects, they were so long shut after\nthe peace as to have defeated irremedially the recovery of debts in many\ncases. They suggest, indeed, the idea of an indemnification on our part.\nBut probably were we disposed to admit their right to indemnification,\nthey would take care to set it so high as to insure a disagreement.\n\n2. That as to indemnification for the negroes, their measures for\nconcealing them were in the first instance so efficacious, as to reduce\nour demand for them, so far as we can support it by direct proof, to be\nvery small indeed. Its smallness seems to have kept it out of discussion.\nWere other difficulties removed, they would probably make none of this\narticle.\n\n3. That they equivocate on every proposal of a treaty of commerce, and\nauthorize in their communications with Mr. Morris the same conclusions\nwhich have been drawn from those they had had from time to time with\nMr. Adams, and those through Mayor Beckwith; to wit, that they do not\nmean to submit their present advantages in commerce to the risk which\nmight attend a discussion of them, whereon some reciprocity could not\nfail to be demanded. Unless, indeed, we would agree to make it a treaty\nof _alliance_ as well as _commerce_, so as to undermine our obligations\nwith France. This method of stripping that rival nation of its alliances,\nthey tried successfully with Holland, endeavored at it with Spain, and\nhave plainly and repeatedly suggested to us. For this they would probably\nrelax some of the rigors they exercise against our commerce.\n\n4. That as to a minister, their Secretary for foreign affairs is disposed\nto exchange one, but meets with opposition in his cabinet, so as to\nrender the issue uncertain.\n\nFrom the whole of which, the Secretary of State is of opinion that Mr.\nMorris' letters remove any doubts which might have been entertained as\nto the intentions and dispositions of the British cabinet.\n\nThat it would be dishonorable to the United States, useless and even\ninjurious, to renew the propositions for a treaty of commerce, or for\nthe exchange of a minister; and that these subjects should now remain\ndormant, till they shall be brought forward earnestly by them.\n\nThat the demands of the posts, and of indemnification for the negroes,\nshould not be again made till we are in readiness to do ourselves the\njustice which may be refused.\n\nThat Mr. Morris should be informed that he has fulfilled the object of his\nagency to the satisfaction of the President, inasmuch as he has enabled\nhim to judge of the real views of the British cabinet, and that it is\nhis pleasure that the matters committed to him be left in the situation\nin which the letter shall find them.\n\nThat a proper compensation be given to Mr. Morris for his services herein,\nwhich having been begun on the 22d of January, and ended the 18th of\nSeptember, comprehend a space of near eight months; that the allowance\nto an agent may be properly fixed anywhere between the half and the\nwhole of what is allowed to a Charg\u00e9 d'affaires; which, according to the\nestablishment of the United States at the time of this appointment, was\nat the rate of $3,000 a year; consequently, that such a sum of between\none and two thousand dollars be allowed him as the President shall deem\nproper, on a view of the interference which this agency may have had\nwith Mr. Morris' private pursuits in Europe.\n\n\nXVIII.--_Report relative to the Mediterranean trade._\n\n December 28, 1790.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of\nRepresentatives so much of the speech of the President of the United\nStates to both Houses of Congress, as relates to the trade of the United\nStates in the Mediterranean, with instructions to report thereupon to\nthe House, has had the same under consideration, and thereupon makes\nthe following report:\n\nThe loss of the records of the custom houses in several of the States,\nwhich took place about the commencement and during the course of the\nlate war, has deprived us of official information, as to the extent of\nour commerce and navigation in the Mediterranean sea. According to the\nbest which may be obtained from other sources meriting respect, it may be\nconcluded that about one-sixth of the wheat and flour exported from the\nUnited States, and about one-fourth in value of their dried and pickled\nfish, and some rice, found their best markets in the Mediterranean ports;\nthat these articles constituted the principal part of what we sent into\nthat sea; that that commerce loaded outwards from eighty to one hundred\nships, annually, of twenty thousand tons, navigated by about twelve\nhundred seamen. It was abandoned early in the war. And after the peace\nwhich ensued, it was obvious to our merchants, that their adventures\ninto that sea would be exposed to the depredations of the piratical\nStates on the coast of Barbary. Congress, too, was very early attentive\nto this danger, and by a commission of the 12th of May, 1784, authorized\ncertain persons, named ministers plenipotentiary for that purpose, to\nconclude treaties of peace and amity with the Barbary powers. And it\nbeing afterwards found more expedient that the negotiations should be\ncarried on at the residences of those powers. Congress, by a farther\ncommission, bearing date the 11th of March, 1785, empowered the same\nministers plenipotentiary to appoint agents to repair to the said powers\nat their proper residences, and there to negotiate such treaties. The\nwhole expenses were limited to eighty thousand dollars. Agents were\naccordingly sent to Morocco and Algiers.\n\nBefore the appointment of the one to Morocco, it was known that a\ncruiser of that State had taken a vessel of the United States; and that\nthe emperor, on the friendly interposition of the court of Madrid had\nliberated the crew, and made restitution of the vessel and cargo, as\nfar as their condition admitted. This was a happy presage of the liberal\ntreaty he afterwards concluded with our agent, still under the friendly\nmediation of Spain, and at an expense of between nine and ten thousand\ndollars only. On his death, which has taken place not long since, it\nbecomes necessary, according to their usage, to obtain immediately a\nrecognition of the treaty by his successor, and consequently, to make\nprovision for the expenses which may attend it. The amount of the former\nfurnishes one ground of estimate; but the character and dispositions of\nthe successor, which are unknown here, may influence it materially. The\nfriendship of this power is important, because our Atlantic as well as\nMediterranean trade is open to his annoyance, and because we carry on\na useful commerce with his nation.\n\nThe Algerines had also taken two vessels of the United States, with\ntwenty-one persons on board, whom they retained as slaves. On the arrival\nof the agent sent to that regency, the dey refused utterly to treat of\npeace on any terms, and demanded 59,496 dollars for the ransom of our\ncaptives. This mission therefore proved ineffectual.\n\nWhile these negotiations were on foot at Morocco and Algiers, an\nambassador from Tripoli arrived in London. The ministers plenipotentiary\nof the United States met him in person. He demanded for the peace of that\nState, thirty thousand guineas; and undertook to engage that of Tunis\nfor a like sum. These demands were beyond the limits of Congress, and\nof reason, and nothing was done. Nor was it of importance, as, Algiers\nremaining hostile, the peace of Tunis and Tripoli was of no value, and\nwhen that of the former should be obtained, theirs would soon follow.\n\nOur navigation, then, into the Mediterranean, has not been resumed at\nall since the peace. The sole obstacle has been the unprovoked war of\nAlgiers; and the sole remedy must be to bring that war to an end, or to\npalliate its effects. Its effects may, perhaps, be palliated by insuring\nour ships and cargoes destined for that sea, and by forming a convention\nwith the regency, for the ransom of our seamen, according to a fixed\ntariff. That tariff will, probably, be high, and the rate of insurance\nso settled, in the long run, as to pay for the vessels and cargoes\ncaptured, and something more. What proportion will be captured nothing\nbut experience can determine. Our commerce differs from that of most of\nthe nations with whom the predatory States are in habits of war. Theirs\nis spread all over the face of the Mediterranean, and therefore must\nbe sought for all over its face. Ours must all enter at a strait only\nfive leagues wide; so that their cruisers, taking a safe and commanding\nposition near the strait's mouth, may very effectually inspect whatever\nenters it. So safe a station, with a certainty of receiving for their\nprisoners a good and stated price, may tempt their cupidity to seek our\nvessels particularly. Nor is it certain that our seamen could be induced\nto engage in that navigation, though with the security of Algerine faith\nthat they would be liberated on the payment of a fixed sum. The temporary\ndeprivation of liberty, perhaps chains, the danger of the pest, the perils\nof the engagement preceding their surrender, and possible delays of the\nransom, might turn elsewhere the choice of men, to whom all the rest of\nthe world is open. In every case, these would be embarrassments which\nwould enter into the merchants' estimate, and endanger the preference of\nforeign bottoms not exposed to them. And upon the whole, this expedient\ndoes not fulfil our wish of a complete re-establishment of our commerce\nin that sea.\n\nA second plan might be to obtain peace by purchasing it. For this we\nhave the example of rich and powerful nations, in this instance counting\ntheir interest more than their honor. If, conforming to their example,\nwe determine to purchase a peace, it is proper to inquire what a peace\nmay cost. This being merely a matter of conjecture, we can only compare\ntogether such opinions as have been obtained, and from them form one\nfor ourselves.\n\nMr. Wolf, a respectable Irishman, who had resided very long at Algiers,\nthought a peace might be obtained from that regency, and the redemption of\nour captives included, for sixty or seventy thousand pounds sterling.[25]\nHis character and opinion both merited respect. Yet his estimate being the\nlowest of all who have hazarded an opinion on this subject, one is apt\nto fear his judgment might have been biassed by the hope he entertained\nthat the United States would charge him with this negotiation.\n\nCaptain O'Brien, one of our captives, who had been in Algiers four years\nand a half at the date of his last letter, a very sensible man, and to\nwhom we are indebted for very minute information, supposes that peace\nalone, might be bought for that sum, that is to say, for three hundred\nand twenty-two thousand dollars.\n\nThe Tripoline ambassador, before mentioned, thought that peace could be\nmade with the three smaller powers for ninety thousand pounds sterling, to\nwhich were to be added the expenses of the mission and other incidental\nexpenses. But he could not answer for Algiers; they would demand more.\nThe ministers plenipotentiary, who conferred with him, had judged that\nas much must be paid to Algiers as to the other three powers together;\nand consequently, that according to this measure, the peace of Algiers\nwould cost from an hundred to an hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds\nsterling; or from four hundred and sixty to five hundred and seventy-five\nthousand dollars.\n\nThe latter sum seemed to meet the ideas of the Count de Vergennes, who,\nfrom a very long residence at Constantinople, was a good judge of what\nrelated to the porte, or its dependencies.\n\nA person whose name is not free to be mentioned here, a native of the\ncontinent of Europe, who had long lived, and still lives at Algiers,\nwith whom the minister plenipotentiary of the United States, at Paris,\nhad many and long conversations, and found his information full, clear,\nand consistent, was of opinion the peace of Algiers could not be bought\nby the United States for less than one million of dollars. And when that\nis paid, all is not done. On the death of a dey, (and the present one is\nbetween seventy and eighty years of age,) respectable presents must be\nmade to the successor, that he may recognize the treaty and very often\nhe takes the liberty of altering it. When a consul is sent or changed,\nnew presents must be made. If these events leave a considerable interval,\noccasion must be made of renewing presents. And with all this they must\nsee that we are in condition to chastise an infraction of the treaty;\nconsequently some marine force must be exhibited in their harbor from\ntime to time.\n\nThe late peace of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three\nto five millions of dollars. Having received the money, they take the\nvessels of that nation on the most groundless pretexts; counting, that\nthe same force which bound Spain to so hard a treaty, may break it with\nimpunity.\n\nTheir treaty with France, which had expired, was about two years ago\nrenewed for fifty years. The sum given at the time of renewal is not\nknown. But presents are to be repeated every ten years, and a tribute\nof one hundred thousand dollars to be annually paid. Yet perceiving that\nFrance, embarrassed at home with her domestic affairs, was less capable\nof acting abroad, they took six vessels of that nation in the course of\nthe last year, and retain the captives, forty-four in number, in slavery.\n\nIt is the opinion of Captain O'Brien, that those nations are best treated\nwho pay a smaller sum in the beginning, and an annual tribute afterwards.\nIn this way he informs us that the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Venetians\npay to Algiers, from twenty-four to thirty thousand dollars a year,\neach; the two first in naval stores, the two last chiefly in money. It\nis supposed, that the peace of the Barbary States costs Great Britain\nabout sixty thousand guineas, or two hundred and eighty thousand dollars\na year. But it must be noted that these facts cannot be authentically\nadvanced; as from a principle of self-condemnation, the governments keep\nthem from the public eye as much as possible.\n\nNor must we omit finally to recollect, that the Algerines, attentive\nto reserve always a sufficient aliment for their piracies, will never\nextend their peace beyond certain limits, and consequently, that we may\nfind ourselves in the case of those nations to whom they refuse peace\nat any price.\n\nThe third expedient is to repel force by force. Several statements are\nhereto annexed of the naval force of Algiers, taken in 1785, 1786, 1787,\n1788, and 1789, differing in small degrees, but concurring in the main.\nFrom these it results that they have usually had about nine chebecs,\nfrom ten to thirty-six guns, and four galleys, which have been reduced\nby losses to six chebecs and four galleys. They have a forty-gun frigate\non the stocks, and expect two cruisers from the grand seignior. The\ncharacter of their vessels is, that they are sharp built and swift, but\nso light as not to stand the broadside of a good frigate. Their guns are\nof different calibres, unskilfully pointed and worked. The vessels illy\nman\u0153uvred, but crowded with men, one third Turks, the rest Moors, of\ndetermined bravery, and resting their sole hopes on boarding. But two of\nthese vessels belong to the government, the rest being private property.\nIf they come out of the harbor together, they separate immediately in\nquest of prey; and it is said they were never known to act together\nin any instance. Nor do they come out at all, when they know there are\nvessels cruising for them. They perform three cruises a year, between\nthe middle of April and November, when they unrig and lay up for the\nwinter. When not confined within the straits, they rove northwardly to\nthe channel, and westwardly to the westward islands.\n\nThey are at peace at present, with France, Spain, England, Venice, the\nUnited Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark; and at war with Russia, Austria,\nPortugal, Naples, Sardinia, Genoa, and Malta.\n\nShould the United States propose to vindicate their commerce by arms,\nthey would, perhaps, think it prudent to possess a force equal to the\nwhole of that which may be opposed to them. What that equal force would\nbe, will belong to another department to say.\n\nAt the same time it might never be necessary to draw out the whole at\nonce, nor perhaps any proportion of it, but for a small part of the\nyear; as it is reasonable to presume that a concert of operation might\nbe arranged among the powers at war with the Barbary States, so as that,\neach performing a tour of given duration, and in given order, a constant\ncruise during the eight temperate months of every year, may be kept\nup before the harbor of Algiers, till the object of such operations be\ncompletely obtained. Portugal has singly, for several years past, kept\nup such a cruise before the straits of Gibraltar, and by that means has\nconfined the Algerines closely within. But two of their vessels have\nbeen out of the straits in the last five years. Should Portugal effect a\npeace with them, as has been apprehended for some time, the Atlantic will\nimmediately become the principal scene of their piracies; their peace\nwith Spain having reduced the profits of their Mediterranean cruises\nbelow the expenses of equipment.\n\nUpon the whole, it rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute,\nand ransom, as the means of re-establishing our Mediterranean commerce.\nIf war, they will consider how far our own resources shall be called\nforth, and how far they will enable the Executive to engage, in the\nforms of the constitution, the co-operation of other powers. If tribute\nor ransom, it will rest with them to limit and provide the amount; and\nwith the Executive, observing the same constitutional forms, to take\narrangements for employing it to the best advantage.\n\n\nNo. 1.--_Extract of a letter from Richard O'Brien, one of the American\ncaptives at Algiers, to Congress. Algiers, December 26, 1789._\n\n\"It was the opinion of Mr. John Wolf, who resided many years in this\ncity, that the United States of America may obtain a peace for one hundred\nyears with this regency, for the sum of sixty or seventy thousand pounds\nsterling, and the redemption of fifteen Americans included. Mr. Wolf was\nthe British _charg\u00e9 des affaires_ in Algiers, and was much the friend\nof America, but he is no more.\n\n\"I have now been four years and a half in captivity, and I have much\nreason to think, that America may obtain a peace with Algiers for the sum\nof sixty-five or seventy thousand pounds, considering the present state\nof Algiers. That this regency would find it their interest to take two\nor three American cruisers in part payment for making a peace; and also\nwould take masts, yards, plank, scantling, tar, pitch, and turpentine,\nand Philadelphia iron, as a part payment; all to be regulated at a\ncertain fixed price by treaty.\"\n\n\nNo. 2.--_Extract of a letter from the Honorable John Adams, Minister\nPlenipotentiary for the United States at London, to the Honorable John\nJay, Secretary for Foreign Affairs. London, February 22, 1786_\n\n\"On Monday evening another conference was held with the Tripolitan\nambassador. When he began to explain himself concerning his demands, he\nsaid they would be different according to the duration of the treaty.\nIf that were perpetual, they would be greater; if for a term of years,\nless; his advice was that it should be perpetual. Once signed by the\nbashaw, dey, and other officers, it would be indissoluble and binding\nforever upon all their successors. But if a temporary treaty were made,\nit might be difficult and expensive to revive it. For a perpetual treaty,\nsuch as they now had with Spain, a sum of thirty thousand guineas must\nbe paid upon the delivery of the articles signed by the dey and other\nofficers. If it were agreed to, he would send his secretary by land to\nMarseilles, and from thence, by water, to Tripoli, who should bring it\nback by the same route, signed by the dey, &c. He had proposed so small\na sum in consideration of the circumstances, but declared it was not\nhalf of what had been lately paid them by Spain. If we chose to treat\nupon a different plan, he would make a treaty perpetual upon the payment\nof twelve thousand five hundred guineas for the first year, and three\nthousand guineas annually, until the thirty thousand guineas were paid. It\nwas observed that these were large sums, and vastly beyond expectation;\nbut his excellency answered, that they never made a treaty for less.\nUpon the arrival of a prize, the dey and other officers are entitled,\nby their laws, to large shares, by which they might make greater profits\nthan those sums amounted to, and they never would give up this advantage\nfor less.\n\n\"He was told, that although there was full power to treat, the American\nministers were limited to a much smaller sum; so that it would be\nimpossible to do anything until we wrote to Congress and know their\npleasure. Colonel Smith was present at this, as he had been at the\nlast conference, and agreed to go to Paris, to communicate all to Mr.\nJefferson, and persuade him to come here, that we may join in farther\nconferences, and transmit the result to Congress.\n\n\"The ambassador believed that Tunis and Morocco would treat upon the\nsame terms, but could not answer for Algiers. They would demand more.\nWhen Mr. Jefferson arrives, we shall insist upon knowing the ultimatum,\nand transmit it to Congress.\n\n\"Congress will perceive that one hundred and twenty thousand guineas will\nbe indispensable to conclude with the four powers at this rate, besides\na present to the ambassadors, and their incidental charges. Besides\nthis, a present of five hundred guineas is made, upon the arrival of\na consul in each State. No man wishes more fervently that the expense\ncould be less, but the fact cannot be altered, and the truth ought not\nto be concealed.\n\n\"It may be reasonably concluded that this great affair cannot be finished\nfor much less than two hundred thousand pounds sterling.\"\n\n\nNo. 3.--_Extract of a Letter from the Honorable Thomas Jefferson, Minister\nPlenipotentiary for the United States at Paris, to the Honorable John\nJay, Secretary for foreign Affairs. Paris, May 23, 1786._\n\n\"Letters received both from Madrid and Algiers, while I was in London,\nhaving suggested that treaties with the States of Barbary would be much\nfacilitated by a previous one with the Ottoman Porte, it was agreed\nbetween Mr. Adams and myself, that on my return I should consult, on this\nsubject, the Count De Vergennes, whose long residence at Constantinople\nrendered him the best judge of its expediency. Various circumstances\nhave put it out of my power to consult him till to-day. I stated to him\nthe difficulties we were likely to meet with at Algiers, and asked his\nopinion, what would be the probable expense of a diplomatic mission\nto Constantinople, and what its effects at Algiers. He said that the\nexpense would be very great; for that presents must be made at that\ncourt, and every one would be gaping after them; and that it would not\nprocure us a peace at Algiers one penny the cheaper. He observed that\nthe Barbary States acknowledged a sort of vassalage to the Porte, and\navailed themselves of that relation when anything was to be gained by\nit; but that whenever it subjected them to the demand from the Porte,\nthey totally disregarded it; that money was the sole agent. He cited the\npresent example of Spain, which, though having a treaty with the Porte,\nwould probably be obliged to buy a peace at Algiers, at the expense of\nupwards of six millions of livres. I told him we had calculated, from\nthe demands and information of the Tripoline ambassador at London, that\nto make peace with the four Barbary States would cost us between two\nand three hundred thousand guineas, if bought with money.\n\n\"The sum did not seem to exceed his expectations. I mentioned to him, that\nconsidering the uncertainty of a peace, when bought, perhaps Congress\nmight think it more eligible to establish a cruise of frigates in the\nMediterranean, and even blockade Algiers. He supposed it would require\nten vessels, great and small. I observed to him that M. De Massiac had\nformerly done it with five; he said it was true, but that vessels of\nrelief would be necessary. I hinted to him that I thought the English\ncapable of administering aid to the Algerines. He seemed to think it\nimpossible, on account of the scandal it would bring on them. I asked him\nwhat had occasioned the blockade by M. De Massiac, he said an infraction\nof their treaty by the Algerines.\"\n\n\nNo. 4.--_Extract of a Letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas\nJefferson. Algiers, April 28, 1787._\n\n\"It seems the Neapolitan ambassador had obtained a truce with this\nregency for three months; and the ambassador wrote his court of his\nsuccess; but about the 1st of April, when the cruisers were fitting out,\nthe ambassador went to the dey, and hoped the dey would give the necessary\norders to the captains of his cruisers not to take the Neapolitan vessels.\nThe dey said the meaning of the truce was not to take the Neapolitan\ncruisers, but if his chebecks should meet the Neapolitan merchantmen to\ntake them and send them for Algiers. The ambassador said, the Neapolitan\ncruisers would not want a pass on those terms. The dey said, if his\nchebecks should meet either men of war or merchant vessels, to take them;\nso gave orders accordingly. The Algerines sailed the 9th instant, and\nare gone, I believe, off the coast of Italy. This shows there is very\nlittle confidence to be put in the royal word. No principle of national\nhonor will bind those people; and I believe not much confidence to be\nput in them in treaties. The Algerines are not inclinable to a peace\nwith the Neapolitans. I hear of no negotiation. When the two frigates\narrive with the money for the ransom of the slaves, I believe they are\ndone with the Neapolitans.\"\n\n\n_Extract of a Letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas Jefferson.\nAlgiers, June 13, 1789._\n\n\"The cruisers had orders to take the Danes; but I believe Denmark,\nsuspecting that on account of their alliance with Russia, that the grand\nseignior would order the regency of Algiers to make war against the\nDanes; accordingly, the Danes have evacuated the Mediterranean seas,\nuntil the affairs of Europe are more settled. The Danish ship with\nthe tribute is shortly expected. She is worth fifty thousand dollars;\nso that the Algerines will not make known publicly their intention of\nbreaking with Denmark, until this ship arrives with the tribute. I am\nvery sure that Mr. Robindar is very sensible of the intention of those\nsea-robbers, the terror and scourge of the Christians. The reason the\nAlgerines have not committed any depredations on the English, is, that\nthe cruisers have not met with any of them richly loaded; for if they\nhad met a rich ship from London for Livorna, they would certainly have\nbrought her into port, and said that such ship was loaded for the enemy\nof Algiers at Livorna; but if that was not a sufficient excuse, hove\noverboard or clipt the pass.\n\n\"Consul Logie has been treated with much contempt by the Algerine\nministry; and you may depend, that when the dey goes to his long home,\nthat his successor will not renew the peace with Great Britain, without\na large sum of money is paid, and very valuable presents. This I well\nknow; the whole ministry says, that the peace with the English is very\nold, and that the English must conform to the custom of other nations,\nin giving the government here money and presents. In fact, the Algerines\nare trying their endeavors to find some nation to break the peace with\nthem. I think, if they had treated the English in such a manner as they\nhave the French, that the English would resent it.\"\n\n\n_Extract of a Letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas Jefferson.\nAlgiers, June 13, 1789._\n\n\"What dependence or faith could be given to a peace with the Algerines,\nconsidering their present haughtiness, and with what contempt and\nderision do they treat all nations; so that, in my opinion, until the\nAlgerines more strictly adhere to the treaties they have already made,\nit would be impolitic in any nation to try to make a peace here; for I\nsee they take more from the nations they are at peace with, than from\nthose they are at declared war with. The Portuguese, I hope, will keep\nthe Algerines inside the straits; for only consider the bad consequence\nof the Algerines going into the mar Grandi. Should the Portuguese make\na sudden peace with this regency, the Algerines would immediately go\nout of the straits, and of course, take many an American.\"\n\n\nNo. 5.--_Extract of a Letter from the Hon. John Adams, Esq., Minister\nPlenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of Great Britain, to\nthe Hon. John Jay, Esq., Secretary for Foreign Affairs. February 16,\n1786._\n\n\"The American commerce can be protected from these Africans only\nby negotiation, or by war. If presents should be exacted from us, as\nample as those which are given by England, the expense may amount to\nsixty thousand pounds sterling a year, an enormous sum to be sure; but\ninfinitely less than the expense of fighting. Two frigates of 30 guns\neach would cost as much to fit them for the sea, besides the accumulating\ncharges of stores, provisions, pay, and clothing. The powers of Europe\ngenerally send a squadron of men of war with their ministers, and offer\nbattle at the same time that they propose treaties and promise presents.\"\n\n\nNo. 6.--_Several statements of the Marine force of Algiers.--Public and\nprivate_\n\nMay 20, 1786.--Mr. Lamb says it consists of\n\n 9 Chebecs } from 36 to 8 guns; manned, the largest with 400 men,\n 10 Row Galleys} and so in proportion.\n\nMay 27, 1787.--Mr. Randall furnishes two statements, viz.:\n\n A more general one--1 Setye of 34 guns.\n 2 \" \" 32 \"\n 1 \" \" 26 \"\n 1 \" \" 24 \"\n 1 Chebec 20 \"\n 1 \" \" 18 \"\n 1 \" \" 10 \"\n ---\n 8\n\n 4 half-galleys, carrying from 120 to 130 Moors.\n 3 galliots of 70, 60, and 50 Moors.\n\nA more particular one as follows:\n\n 1 of 32 guns, viz. 2 eighteens, 24 nines, 6 fours, and 450 men.\n 1 of 28 \" \" 2 twelves, 24 \" 2 sixes, \" 400 \"\n 1 of 24 \" \" 20 fours, \" 350 \"\n 1 of 20 \" \" 20 sixes, \" 300 \"\n 2 of 18 \" \" 18 \" \" 260 \"\n 1 of 16 \" \" 16 \" \" 250 \"\n 2 small craft.\n ---\n 9\n\n 55 gun-boats, carrying 1 twelve pounder each, for defence of the\n harbor.\n\nJune 8, 1786.--A letter from the three American captains, O'Brien,\nCoffin, and Stephens, state them\n\n as 1 of 32\n 1 of 30\n 3 of 24\n 3 of 18\n 1 of 12\n ---\n 9 and 55 gun-boats.\n\nSeptember 25, 1787.--Captain O'Brien furnishes the following statement\n\n 1 of 30 guns, 400 men, 106 feet length, straight keel.\n 1 of 26 \" 320 \" 96 \" \" \" \"\n 2 of 22 \" 240 \" 80 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 22 \" 240 \" 75 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 22 \" 240 \" 70 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 18 \" 200 \" 70 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 16 \" 180 \" 64 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 12 \" 150 \" 50 \" \" \" \"\n ---\n 9\n Galleys 1 of 4 \" 70 \" 40 \" \" \" \"\n 2 of 2 \" 46 \" 32 \" \" \" \"\n 1 of 2 \" 40 \" 32 \" \" \" \"\n\nFebruary 5, 1788.--Statement by the inhabitants of Algiers, spoken of\nin the report.\n\n 9 vessels from 36 down to 20 guns.\n 4 or 5 smaller.\n\nAbout this date the Algerines lost two or three vessels, stranded or taken.\n\nDecember, 1789.--Captain O'Brien furnishes the latest statement.\n\n 1 ship of 24 guns, received lately from France.\n 5 large cruisers.\n ---\n 6 3 galleys, and 60 gun-boats.\n\nIn the fall of 1789, they laid the keel of a 40 gun frigate, and they\nexpect two cruisers from the grand seignior.\n\n\nNo. 7.--_Translation of a Letter from Count D'Estaing to the Hon. Thomas\nJefferson, Esq. Paris, May 17, 1784._\n\nSIR,--In giving you an account of an opinion of Mr. Massiac, and\nwhich absolutely corresponds with my own, I cannot too much observe how\ngreat a difference may take place in the course of forty years between\nthe means which he required and those which political circumstances,\nthat I cannot ascertain, may exact.\n\nThis Secretary of State, afterwards vice-Admiral, had the modesty, when a\ncaptain, to propose a means for the reduction of Algiers, less brilliant\nto himself, but more sure and economical than the one government was\nabout to adopt. They wanted him to undertake a bombardment; he proposed\na simple blockade. All the force he requested was a single man-of-war,\ntwo strong frigates, and two sloops-of-war.\n\nI am convinced, that by blocking up Algiers by cross-anchoring, and with\na long tow, that is to say, with several cables spliced to each other,\nand with iron chains, one might, if necessary, always remain there, and\nthere is no Barbarian power thus confined, which would not sue for peace.\n\nDuring the war before last the English remained, even in winter, at\nanchor before Morbian, on the coast of Brittany, which is a much more\ndangerous coast. Expeditious preparation for sailing of the vessels\nwhich form the blockade, which should be of a sufficient number to\nprevent anything from entering or going out, while the rest remain at\ntheir stations, the choice of these stations, skilful man\u0153uvres, strict\nwatch during the night, every precaution against the element which every\nseaman ought to be acquainted with; also, against the enemy to prevent\nthe sudden attack of boats, and to repel them in case they should make\nan attack by boats prepared for the purpose, frequent refreshments for\nthe crews, relieving the men, an unshaken constancy and exactness in\nservice, are the means, which in my opinion, would render the event\nindubitable. Bombardments are but transitory. It is, if I may so express\nmyself, like breaking glass windows with guineas. None have produced\neffect against the barbarians. Even an imperfect blockade, were one\nto have the patience and courage to persist therein, would occasion a\nperpetual evil, it would be insupportable in the long run. To obtain the\nend proposed no advantage ought to be lost. If several powers would come\nto a good understanding, and pursue a plan formed on the principles of\nhumanity; if they were not counteracted by others, it would require but\na few years to compel the barbarians to cease being pirates; they would\nbecome merchants in spite of themselves. It is needless to observe, that\nthe unsuccessful attempts of Spain, and those under which the republic\nof Venice, perhaps, hides other views, have increased the strength as\nwell as the self-love of all the barbarians. We are assured that the\nAlgerines have fitted out merchantmen with heavy cannon. This would\nrender it necessary to block the place with two ships, so that one of\nthe two might remain moored near the bar, while the other might prepare\nto support such of the frigates as should give chase. But their chebecs,\neven their frigates, and all their vessels, although overcharged with\nmen, are moreover so badly armed and man\u0153uvred that assistance from\nwithout would be most to be feared.\n\nYour excellency has told me the only true means of bringing to terms the\nonly people who can take a pleasure in disturbing our commerce. You see,\nI speak as an American citizen; this title, dear to my heart, the value\nof which I justly prize, affords me the happy opportunity of offering,\nstill more particularly, the homage, the sincere attachment, and the\nrespect with which I have the honor to be, &c.\n\n ESTAING.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [25] See No. 1 accompanying this report.\n\n\nXIX.--_Report on the Algerine Prisoners._\n\n December 28, 1790.\n\nThe Secretary of State, having had under consideration the situation\nof the citizens of the United States in captivity at Algiers, makes the\nfollowing report thereupon to the President of the United States:\n\nWhen the House of Representatives, at their late session, were pleased to\nrefer to the Secretary of State, the petition of our citizens in captivity\nat Algiers, there still existed some expectation that certain measures,\nwhich had been employed to effect their redemption, the success of which\ndepended on their secrecy, might prove effectual. Information received\nduring the recess of Congress has so far weakened those expectations, as\nto make it now a duty to lay before the President of the United States,\na full statement of what has been attempted for the relief of these our\nsuffering citizens, as well before, as since he came into office, that\nhe may be enabled to decide what further is to be done.\n\nOn the 25th of July, 1785, the schooner Maria, Captain Stevens, belonging\nto a Mr. Foster, of Boston, was taken off Cape St. Vincents, by an\nAlgerine corsair; and, five days afterwards, the ship Dauphin, Captain\nO'Brien, belonging to Messieurs Irvins of Philadelphia, was taken by\nanother Algerine, about fifty leagues westward of Lisbon. These vessels,\nwith their cargoes and crews, twenty-one persons in number, were carried\ninto Algiers.\n\nCongress had some time before commissioned ministers plenipotentiary for\nentering into treaties of amity and commerce with the Barbary Powers, and\nto send to them proper agents for preparing such treaties. An agent was\naccordingly appointed for Algiers, and his instructions prepared, when\nthe Ministers Plenipotentiary received information of these captures.\nThough the ransom of captives was not among the objects expressed in\ntheir commissions, because at their dates the case did not exist, yet\nthey thought it their duty to undertake that ransom, fearing that the\ncaptives might be sold and dispersed through the interior and distant\ncountries of Africa, if the previous orders of Congress should be waited\nfor. They therefore added a supplementary instruction to the agent to\nnegotiate their ransom. But, while acting thus without authority, they\nthought themselves bound to offer a price so moderate as not to be\ndisapproved. They therefore restrained him to two hundred dollars a man;\nwhich was something less than had been just before paid for about three\nhundred French captives, by the Mathurins, a religious order of France,\ninstituted in ancient times for the redemption of Christian captives\nfrom the infidel Powers. On the arrival of the agent at Algiers, the dey\ndemanded fifty-nine thousand four hundred and ninety-six dollars for the\ntwenty-one captives, and could be brought to abate but little from that\ndemand. The agent, therefore, returned in 1786, without having effected\neither peace or ransom.\n\nIn the beginning of the next year, 1787, the Minister Plenipotentiary of\nthe United States at Paris procured an interview with the general of the\nreligious order of Mathurins, before mentioned, to engage him to lend\nhis agency, at the expense of the United States, for the redemption of\ntheir captive citizens. He proffered at once all the services he could\nrender, with the liberality and the zeal which distinguish his character.\nHe observed, that he had agents on the spot, constantly employed in\nseeking out and redeeming the captives of their own country; that these\nshould act for us, as for themselves; that nothing could be accepted for\ntheir agency; and that he would only expect that the price of redemption\nshould be ready on our part, so as to cover the engagement into which he\nshould enter. He added, that, by the time all expenses were paid, their\nlast redemption had amounted to near two thousand five hundred livres\na man, and that he could by no means flatter us that they could redeem\nour captives as cheap as their own. The pirates would take advantage of\nits being out of their ordinary line. Still he was in hopes they would\nnot be much higher.\n\nThe proposition was then submitted to Congress, that is to say, in\nFebruary, 1787, and on the 19th of September, in the same year, their\nMinister Plenipotentiary at Paris received their orders to embrace the\noffers of the Mathurins. This he immediately notified to the general,\nobserving, however, that he did not desire him to enter into any\nengagements till a sufficient sum to cover them should be actually\ndeposited in Paris. The general wished that the whole might be kept\nrigorously secret, as, should the barbarians suspect him to be acting for\nthe United States, they would demand such sums as he could never agree to\ngive, even with our consent, because it would injure his future purchases\nfrom them. He said he had information from his agent at Algiers, that our\ncaptives received so liberal a daily allowance as to evince that it came\nfrom a public source. He recommended that this should be discontinued;\nengaging that he would have an allowance administered to them, much\nshort indeed of what they had hitherto received, but such as was given\nto his own countrymen, quite sufficient for physical necessities, and\nmore likely to prepare the opinion, that as they were subsisted by his\ncharity, they were to be redeemed by it also. These ideas, suggested to\nhim by the danger of raising his market, were approved by the Minister\nPlenipotentiary; because, this being the first instance of a redemption\nby the United States, it would form a precedent, because a high price\ngiven by us might induce these pirates to abandon all other nations in\npursuit of Americans; whereas, the contrary would take place, could our\nprice of redemption be fixed at the lowest point.\n\nTo destroy, therefore, every expectation of a redemption by the United\nStates, the bills of the Spanish consul at Algiers, who had made the kind\nadvances before spoken of for the sustenance of our captives, were not\nanswered. On the contrary, a hint was given that these advances had better\nbe discontinued, as it was not known that they would be reimbursed. It\nwas necessary even to go further, and to suffer the captives themselves\nand their friends to believe for awhile, that no attention was paid\nto them, no notice taken of their letters. They are still under this\nimpression. It would have been unsafe to trust them with a secret, the\ndisclosure of which might forever prevent their redemption, by raising\nthe demands of the captors to sums which a due regard for our seamen,\nstill in freedom, would forbid us to give. This was the most trying of\nall circumstances, and drew from them the most afflicting reproaches.\n\nIt was a twelvemonth afterwards before the money could be deposited in\nParis, and the negotiation be actually put into train. In the meantime\nthe general had received information from Algiers of a very considerable\nchange of prices there. Within the last two or three years the Spaniards,\nthe Neapolitans, and the Russians, had redeemed at exorbitant sums.\nSlaves were become scarce, and would hardly be sold at any price. Still\nhe entered on the business with an assurance of doing the best in his\npower; and he was authorized to offer as far as three thousand livres,\nor five hundred and fifty-five dollars a man. He wrote immediately to\nconsult a confidential agent at Marseilles, on the best mode of carrying\nthis business into effect; from whom he received the answer No. 2, hereto\nannexed.\n\nNothing further was known of his progress or prospects, when the House\nof Representatives were pleased, at their last session, to refer the\npetition of our captives at Algiers to the Secretary of State. The\npreceding narrative shows that no report could have then been made without\nrisking the object, of which some hopes were still entertained. Later\nadvices, however, from the charg\u00e9 des affaires of the United States, at\nParis, informs us, that these measures, though not yet desperate, are\nnot to be counted on. Besides the exorbitance of price, before feared,\nthe late transfer of the lands and revenues of the clergy in France\nto the public, by withdrawing the means, seems to have suspended the\nproceedings of the Mathurins in the purposes of their institution.\n\nIt is time, therefore, to look about for something more promising,\nwithout relinquishing, in the meanwhile, the chance of success through\nthem. Endeavors to collect information, which have been continued a\nconsiderable time, as to the ransoms which would probably be demanded\nfrom us, and those actually paid by other nations, enable the Secretary\nof State to lay before the President the following short view, collected\nfrom original papers now in his possession, or from information delivered\nto him personally. Passing over the ransoms of the Mathurins, which are\nkept far below the common level by special circumstances:\n\nIn 1786, the dey of Algiers demanded from our agent $59,496 for twenty-one\ncaptives, which was $2,833 a man. The agent flattered himself they could\nbe ransomed for $1,200 apiece. His secretary informed us, at the same\ntime, that Spain had paid $1,600.\n\nIn 1787, the Russians redeemed at $1,546 a man.\n\nIn 1788, a well-informed inhabitant of Algiers assured the Minister\nPlenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, that no nation had\nredeemed, since the Spanish treaty, at less than from \u00a3250 to \u00a3300\nsterling, the medium of which is $1,237. Captain O'Brien, at the same\ndate, thinks we must pay $1,800, and mentions a Savoy captain, just\nredeemed at $4,074.\n\nIn 1789, Mr. Logie, the English consul at Algiers, informed a person who\nwished to ransom one of our common sailors, that he would cost from \u00a3450\nto \u00a3500 sterling, the mean of which is $2,137. In December of the same\nyear, Captain O'Brien thinks our men will now cost $2,290 each, though\na Jew merchant believes he could get them for $2,264.\n\nIn 1790, July 9th, a Mr. Simpson, of Gibraltar, who, at some particular\nrequest, had taken pains to find for what sum our captives could be\nredeemed, finds that the fourteen will cost $34,79,228, which is $2,485\na man. At the same date, one of them, a Scotch boy, a common mariner,\nwas actually redeemed at 8,000 livres, equal to $1,481, which is within\nnineteen dollars of the price Simpson states for common men; and the\ncharg\u00e9 des affaires of the United States at Paris is informed that\nthe whole may be redeemed at that rate, adding fifty per cent. on the\ncaptains, which would bring it to $1,571 a man.\n\nIt is found then that the prices are 1,200, 1,237, 1,481, 1,546, 1,571,\n1,600, 1,800, 2,137, 2,264, 2,485, 2,833, and 2,920 dollars a man, not\nnoticing that of $4,074, because it was for a captain.\n\nIn 1786, there were 2,200 captives in Algiers, which, in 1789, had been\nreduced by death or ransom to 655. Of ours six have died, and one has\nbeen ransomed by his friends.\n\nFrom these facts and opinions, some conjecture may be formed of the\nterms on which the liberty of our citizens may be obtained.\n\nBut should it be thought better to repress force by force, another\nexpedient for their liberation may perhaps offer. Captures made on the\nenemy may perhaps put us into possession of some of their mariners, and\nexchange be substituted for ransom. It is not indeed a fixed usage with\nthem to exchange prisoners. It is rather their custom to refuse it.\nHowever, such exchanges are sometimes effected, by allowing them more\nor less of advantage. They have sometimes accepted of two Moors for a\nChristian, at others they have refused five or six for one. Perhaps\nTurkish captives may be objects of greater partiality with them, as\ntheir government is entirely in the hands of Turks, who are treated in\nevery instance as a superior order of beings. Exchange, too, will be more\npracticable in our case, as our captives have not been sold to private\nindividuals, but are retained in the hands of the Government.\n\nThe liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with\nthe liberation of our commerce in the Mediterranean, now under the\nconsideration of Congress. The distresses of both proceed from the same\ncause, and the measures which shall be adopted for the relief of the\none, may, very probably, involve the relief of the other.\n\n\nXX.--_The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of\nRepresentatives, the representation from the General Court of the\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts, on the subjects of the cod and whale\nfisheries, together with the several papers accompanying it, has had\nthe same under consideration, and thereupon makes the following report_:\n\n February 1, 1791.\n\nThe representation sets forth that, before the late war, about four\nthousand seamen, and about twenty-four thousand tons of shipping, were\nannually employed from that State, in the whale fishery, the produce\nwhereof was about three hundred and fifty thousand pounds lawful money\na year.\n\nThat, previous to the same period, the cod fishery of that State employed\nfour thousand men, and twenty-eight thousand tons of shipping, and\nproduced about two hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year.\n\nThat these branches of business, annihilated during the war, have been,\nin some degree, recovered since; but that they labor under many and\nheavy embarrassments, which, if not removed, or lessened, will render\nthe fisheries every year less extensive and important.\n\nThat these embarrassments are, heavy duties on their produce abroad,\nand bounties on that of their competitors; and duties at home on several\narticles, particularly used in the fisheries.\n\nAnd it asks that the duties be taken off; that bounties be given to\nthe fishermen; and the national influence be used abroad, for obtaining\nbetter markets for their produce.\n\nThe cod and whale fisheries, carried on by different persons, from\ndifferent ports, in different vessels, in different seas, and seeking\ndifferent markets, agree in one circumstance, in being as unprofitable\nto the adventurer, as important to the public. A succinct view of their\nrise, progress, and present state, with different nations, may enable\nus to note the circumstances which have attended their prosperity, and\ntheir decline; to judge of the embarrassments which are said to oppress\nours; to see whether they depend on our own will, and may, therefore,\nbe remedied immediately by ourselves, or, whether depending on the will\nof others, they are without the reach of remedy from us, either directly\nor indirectly.\n\nTheir history being as unconnected as their practice, they shall be\nseparately considered.\n\nWithin twenty years after the supposed discovery of Newfoundland, by\nthe Cabots, we find that the abundance of fish on its banks, had already\ndrawn the attention of the people of Europe. For, as early as 1517, or\n1519, we are told of fifty ships being seen there at one time. The first\nadventurers in that fishery were the Biscayans, of Spain, the Basques\nand Bas-Bretons, of France, all united anciently in language, and still\nin habits, and in extreme poverty. The last circumstance enabled them\nlong to retain a considerable share of the fishery. In 1577, the French\nhad one hundred and fifty vessels there; the Spaniards had still one\nhundred, and the Portuguese fifty, when the English had only fifteen.\nThe Spaniards and Portuguese seem at length to have retired silently, the\nFrench and English claiming the fishery exclusively, as an appurtenance\nto their adjacent colonies, and the profits being too small for nations\nsurcharged with the precious metals proceeding from their mines.\n\nWithout materials to trace the intermediate progress, we only know that,\nso late as 1744, the French employed there five hundred and sixty-four\nships, and twenty-seven thousand five hundred seamen, and took one million\ntwo hundred and forty-six thousand quintals of fish, which was three\ntimes the extent to which England and her colonies together, carried\nthis fishery at that time.\n\nThe English, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, had employed,\ngenerally, about one hundred and fifty vessels in the Newfoundland\nfishery. About 1670 we find them reduced to eighty, and one hundred,\nthe inhabitants of New England beginning now to supplant them. A little\nbefore this, the British Parliament perceiving that their citizens were\nunable to subsist on the scanty profits which sufficed for their poorer\ncompetitors, endeavored to give them some advantage by prohibiting the\nimportation of foreign fish; and, at the close of the century, they\nformed some regulations for their government and protection, and remitted\nto them some duties. A successful war enabled them, in 1713, to force\nfrom the French a cession of the Island of Newfoundland; under these\nencouragements, the English and American fisheries began to thrive. In\n1731 we find the English take two hundred thousand quintals of fish,\nand the Americans two hundred and thirty thousand, besides the refuse\nfish, not fit for European markets. They continue to gain ground, and\nthe French to lose it, insomuch that, about 1755, they are said to\nhave been on a par; and, in 1768, the French have only two hundred and\nfifty-nine vessels, of twenty-four thousand four hundred and twenty tons,\nnine thousand seven hundred and twenty-two seamen, taking two hundred\nthousand quintals, while America alone, for some three or four years\nbefore that, and so on, to the commencement of the late war, employed\nsix hundred and sixty-five vessels, of twenty-five thousand six hundred\nand fifty tons, and four thousand four hundred and five seamen, and\ntook from three hundred and fifty thousand to upwards of four hundred\nthousand quintals of fish, and England a still greater quantity, five\nhundred and twenty-six thousand quintals, as is said.\n\nSpain had formally relinquished her pretensions to a participation in\nthese fisheries, at the close of the preceding war; and, at the end\nof this, the adjacent continent and islands being divided between the\nUnited States, the English and French, (for the last retained two small\nislands merely for this object,) the right of fishing was appropriated\nto them also.\n\nFrance, sensible of the necessity of balancing the power of England on the\nwater, and, therefore, of improving every resource for raising seamen, and\nseeing that her fishermen could not maintain their competition without\nsome public patronage, adopted the experiment of bounties on her own\nfish, and duties on that of foreign nations brought into her markets.\nBut, notwithstanding this, her fisheries dwindle, from a change taken\nplace, insensibly, in the character of her navigation, which, from being\nthe most economical, is now become the most expensive. In 1786, she is\nsaid to have employed but seven thousand men in this fishery, and to have\ntaken four hundred and twenty-six thousand quintals; and, in 1787, but\nsix thousand men, and one hundred and twenty-eight thousand quintals.\nShe seems not yet sensible that the unthriftiness of her fisheries\nproceeds from the want of economy, and not the want of markets; and that\nthe encouragement of our fishery abridges that of a rival nation, whose\npower on the ocean has long threatened the loss of all balance on that\nelement.\n\nThe plan of the English Government, since the peace, has been to prohibit\nall foreign fish in their markets, and they have given from eighteen to\nfifty thousand pounds sterling on every fishing vessel complying with\ncertain conditions. This policy is said to have been so far successful,\nas to have raised the number of seamen employed in that business, in\n1786, to fourteen thousand, and the quantity of fish taken, to 732,000\nquintals.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe fisheries of the United States, annihilated during the war; their\nvessels, utensils, and fishermen destroyed; their markets in the\nMediterranean and British America lost, and their produce dutied in those\nof France; their competitors enabled by bounties to meet and undersell\nthem at the few markets remaining open, without any public aid, and,\nindeed, paying aids to the public;--such were the hopeless auspices under\nwhich this important business was to be resumed. Yet it was resumed, and,\naided by the mere force of natural advantages, they employed, during\nthe years 1786, 1787, 1788, and 1789, on an average, five hundred and\nthirty-nine vessels, of nineteen thousand one hundred and eighty-five\ntons, three thousand two hundred and eighty-seven seamen, and took\ntwo hundred and fifty thousand six hundred and fifty quintals of fish.\n* * * * * And an official paper * * * * * shows that, in the last of\nthose years, our exportation amounted to three hundred and seventy-five\nthousand and twenty quintals, and thirty thousand four hundred and\nsixty-one barrels; deduction made of three thousand seven hundred and\none quintals, and six thousand three hundred and forty-three barrels of\nforeign fish, received and re-exported. * * * * * Still, however, the\ncalculations * * * * * which accompany the representation, show that\nthe profits of the sales in the years 1787 and 1788, were too small to\nafford a living to the fishermen, and on those of 1789, there was such\na loss as to withdraw thirty-three vessels, of the town of Marblehead\nalone, from the further pursuit of this business; and the apprehension\nis, that, without some public aid, those still remaining will continue\nto withdraw, and this whole commerce be engrossed by a single nation.\n\nThis rapid view of the cod fishery enables us to discern under what\npolicy it has nourished or declined in the hands of other nations, and\nto mark the fact, that it is too poor a business to be left to itself,\neven with the nation most advantageously situated.\n\nIt will now be proper to count the advantages which aid, and the\ndisadvantages which oppose us, in this conflict.\n\nOur advantages are--\n\n1. The neighborhood of the great fisheries, which permits our fishermen\nto bring home their fish to be salted by their wives and children.\n\n2. The shore fisheries, so near at hand, as to enable the vessels to run\ninto port in a storm, and so lessen the risk, for which distant nations\nmust pay insurance.\n\n3. The winter fisheries, which, like household manufactures employ\nportions of time, which would otherwise be useless.\n\n4. The smallness of the vessels, which the shortness of the voyage enables\nus to employ, and which, consequently, require but a small capital.\n\n5. The cheapness of our vessels, which do not cost above the half of\nthe Baltic fir vessels, computing price and duration.\n\n6. Their excellence as sea boats, which decreases the risk and quickens\nthe return.\n\n7. The superiority of our mariners in skill, activity, enterprise,\nsobriety, and order.\n\n8. The cheapness of provisions.\n\n9. The cheapness of casks, which, of itself, is said to be equal to an\nextra profit of fifteen per cent.\n\nThese advantages are of such force, that, while experience has proved\nthat no other nation can make a mercantile profit on the Newfoundland\nfishery, nor can support it without national aid, we can make a living\nprofit, if vent for our fish can be procured.\n\nOf the disadvantages opposed to us, those which depend on ourselves, are--\n\nTonnage and naval duties on the vessels employed in the fishery.\n\nImpost duties on salt.\n\nOn tea, rum, sugar, molasses, hooks, lines, and leads, duck, cordage, and\ncables, iron, hemp, and twine, used in the fishery; coarse woollens, worn\nby the fishermen, and the poll tax levied by the State on their persons.\nThe statement No. 6, shows the amount of these, exclusive of the State\ntax and drawback on the fish exported, to be $5 25 per man, or $57 75\nper vessel of sixty-five tons. When a business is so nearly in equilibrio\nthat one can hardly discern whether the profit be sufficient to continue\nit or not, smaller sums than these suffice to turn the scale against\nit. To these disadvantages, add ineffectual duties on the importation\nof foreign fish. In justification of these last, it is urged that the\nforeign fish received, is in exchange for the produce of agriculture.\nTo which it may be answered, that the thing given, is more merchantable\nthan that received in exchange, and agriculture has too many markets to\nbe allowed to take away those of the fisheries. It will rest, therefore,\nwith the wisdom of the Legislature to decide, whether prohibition should\nnot be opposed to prohibition, and high duty to high duty, on the fish\nof other nations; whether any, and which, of the naval and other duties\nmay be remitted, or an equivalent given to the fisherman, in the form of\na drawback, or bounty; and whether the loss of markets abroad, may not,\nin some degree, be compensated, by creating markets at home; to which\nmight contribute the constituting fish a part of the military ration,\nin stations not too distant from navigation, a part of the necessary\nsea stores of vessels, and the encouraging private individuals to let\nthe fishermen share with the cultivator, in furnishing the supplies of\nthe table. A habit introduced from motives of patriotism, would soon be\nfollowed from motives of taste; and who will undertake to fix the limits\nto this demand, if it can be once excited, with a nation which doubles,\nand will continue to double, at very short periods?\n\nOf the disadvantages which depend on others, are--\n\n1. The loss of the Mediterranean markets.\n\n2. Exclusions from the markets of some of our neighbors.\n\n3. High duties in those of others; and,\n\n4. Bounties to the individuals in competition with us.\n\nThe consideration of these will find its place more aptly, after a\nreview of the condition of our whale fishery shall have led us to the\nsame point. To this branch of the subject, therefore, we will now proceed.\n\nThe whale fishery was first brought into notice of the southern nations of\nEurope, in the fifteenth century, by the same Biscayans and Basques who\nled the way to the fishery of Newfoundland. They began it on their own\ncoasts, but soon found that the principal residence of the whale was in\nthe Northern seas, into which, therefore, they pursued him. In 1578 they\nemployed twenty-five ships in that business. The Dutch and Hamburghers\ntook it up after this, and about the middle of the seventeenth century\nthe former employed about two hundred ships, and the latter about three\nhundred and fifty.\n\nThe English endeavored also to participate of it. In 1672, they offered\nto their own fishermen a bounty of six shillings a ton, on the oil\nthey should bring home, and instituted, at different times, different\nexclusive companies, all of which failed of success. They raised their\nbounty, in 1733, to twenty shillings a ton, on the admeasurement of the\nvessel. In 1740, to thirty shillings, with a privilege to the fishermen\nagainst being impressed. The Basque fishery, supported by poverty alone,\nhad maintained but a feeble existence, before competitors aided by the\nbounties of their nation, and was, in fine, annihilated by the war of\n1745, at the close of which the English bounty was raised to forty\nshillings. From this epoch, their whale fishery went on between the\nlimits of twenty-eight and sixty-seven vessels, till the commencement\nof the last war.\n\nThe Dutch, in the meantime, had declined gradually to about one hundred\nand thirty ships, and have, since that, fallen down to less than half that\nnumber. So that their fishery, notwithstanding a bounty of thirty florins\na man, as well as that of Hamburg, is now nearly out of competition.\n\nIn 1715, the Americans began their whale fishery. They were led to it\nat first by the whales which presented themselves on their coasts. They\nattacked them there in small vessels of forty tons. As the whale, being\ninfested, retired from the coast, they followed him farther and farther\ninto the ocean, still enlarging their vessels with their adventures, to\nsixty, one hundred, and two hundred tons. Having extended their pursuit\nto the Western Islands, they fell in, accidentally, with the spermaceti\nwhale, of a different species from that of Greenland, which alone had\nhitherto been known in commerce: more fierce and active, and whose oil\nand head matter was found to be more valuable, as it might be used in\nthe interior of houses without offending the smell. The distinction now\nfirst arose between the Northern and Southern fisheries: the object of\nthe former being the Greenland whale, which frequents the Northern coasts\nand seas of Europe and America; that of the latter being the spermaceti\nwhale, which was found in the Southern seas, from the Western Islands\nand coast of Africa, to that of Brazil, and still on to the Falkland\nIslands. Here, again, within soundings, on the coast of Brazil, they\nfound a third species of whale, which they called the black or Brazil\nwhale, smaller than the Greenland, yielding a still less valuable\noil, fit only for summer use, as it becomes opaque at 50 degrees of\nFahrenheit's termometer, while that of the spermaceti whale is limpid\nto 41, and of the Greenland whale to 36, of the same thermometer. It is\nonly worth taking, therefore, when it falls in the way of the fishermen,\nbut not worth seeking, except when they have failed of success against\nthe spermaceti whale, in which case, this kind, easily found and taken,\nserves to moderate their loss.\n\nIn 1771 the Americans had one hundred and eighty-three vessels, of\nthirteen thousand eight hundred and twenty tons, in the Northern fishery,\nand one hundred and twenty-one vessels, of fourteen thousand and twenty\ntons, in the Southern, navigated by four thousand and fifty-nine men.\nAt the beginning of the late war, they had one hundred and seventy-seven\nvessels in the Northern, and one hundred and thirty-two in the Southern\nfishery. At that period, our fishery being suspended, the English\nseized the opportunity of pushing theirs. They gave additional bounties\nof \u00a3500, \u00a3400, \u00a3300, \u00a3200, \u00a3100 sterling, annually, to the five ships\nwhich should take the greatest quantities of oil. The effect of which\nwas such, as, by the year 1786, to double the quantity of common oil\nnecessary for their own consumption. Finding, on a review of the subject,\nat that time, that their bounties had cost the Government \u00a313 10_s._\nsterling a man, annually, or sixty per cent. on the cargoes, a part of\nwhich went consequently to ease the purchases of this article made by\nforeign nations, they reduced the northern bounty from forty to thirty\nshillings the ton of admeasurement.\n\nThey had, some little time before, turned their attention to the Southern\nfishery, and given very great bounties in it, and had invited the\nfishermen of the United States to conduct their enterprises. Under their\nguidance, and with such encouragement, this fishery, which had only begun\nwith them in 1784 or 1785, was rising into value. In 1788 they increased\ntheir bounties, and the temptations to our fishermen, under the general\ndescription of _foreigners who had been employed in the whale fishery_,\nto pass over with their families and vessels to the British dominions,\neither in America or Europe, but preferably to the latter. The effect of\nthese measures had been prepared, by our whale oils becoming subject,\nin their market, to the foreign duty of \u00a318 5_s._ sterling the ton,\nwhich, being more than equal to the price of the common oil, operated\nas a prohibition on that, and gave to their spermaceti oil a preference\nover ours to that amount.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe fishermen of the United States, left without resource, by the loss\nof their market, began to think of accepting the British invitation,\nand of removing, some to Nova Scotia, preferring smaller advantages in\nthe neighborhood of their ancient country and friends, others to Great\nBritain, postponing country and friends to high premiums.\n\nThe Government of France could not be inattentive to these proceedings.\nThey saw the danger of letting four or five thousand seamen, of the\nbest in the world, be transferred to the marine strength of another\nnation, and carry over with them an art, which they possessed almost\nexclusively. To give time for a counterplan, the Marquis de Lafayette,\nthe valuable friend and citizen of this, as well as that country, wrote\nto a gentleman in Boston, to dissuade the fishermen from accepting\nthe British proposals, and to assure them that their friends in France\nwould endeavor to do something for them. A vessel was then arrived from\nHalifax at Nantucket, to take off those who had proposed to remove. Two\nfamilies had gone abroad, and others were going. In this moment, the\nletter arriving, suspended their designs. Not another went abroad, and\nthe vessel returned to Halifax with only the two families.\n\nThe plan adopted by the French ministry, very different from that of\nthe first mover, was to give a counter invitation to the Nantucket men\nto remove and settle in Dunkirk, offering them a bounty of fifty livres\n(between nine and ten dollars) a ton on the admeasurement of the vessels\nthey should equip for the whale fishery, with some other advantages.\nNine families only, of thirty-three persons, accepted the invitation.\nThis was in 1785. In 1786, the ministry were led to see that their\ninvitation would produce but little effect, and that the true means\nof preventing the emigration of our fishermen to the British dominions\nwould be to enable them still to follow their calling from their native\ncountry, by giving them a new market for their oils, instead of the old\none they had lost. The duties were, therefore, abated on American whale\noil immediately, and a further abatement promised by the letter No. 8,\nand, in December, 1787, the arr\u00eat No. 9 was passed.\n\nThe rival fishermen immediately endeavored to turn this measure to\ntheir own advantage, by pouring their whale oils into the markets of\nFrance, where they were enabled, by the great premiums received from\ntheir Government, perhaps, too, by extraordinary indemnifications, to\nundersell both the French and American fishermen. To repel this measure,\nFrance shut her ports to all foreign fish oils whatever, by the arr\u00eat\nNo. 10. The British whale fishery fell, in consequence, the ensuing year\nfrom two hundred and twenty-two to one hundred and seventy-eight ships.\nBut this general exclusion has palsied our fishery also. On the 7th of\nDecember, 1788, therefore, by the arr\u00eat No. 11, the ports of France still\nremaining shut to all other nations, were again opened to the produce\nof the whale fisheries of the United States, continuing, however, their\nendeavors to recover a share in this fishery themselves, by the aid of\nour fishermen. In 1784, 1785, 1786, they had had four ships. In 1787,\nthree. In 1788, seventeen in the two fisheries of four thousand five\nhundred tons. These cost them in bounty 225,000 livres, which divided\non one thousand five hundred and fifty tons of oil, the quantity they\ntook, amounted to 145 livres (near twenty-seven dollars) the ton, and,\non about one hundred natives on board the seventeen ships, (for there\nwere one hundred and fifty Americans engaged by the voyage) came to\n2,225 livres, or about 416\u2154 dollars a man.\n\nWe have had, during the years 1787, 1788 and 1789, on an average,\nninety-one vessels, of five thousand eight hundred and twenty tons, in\nthe northern, and thirty-one of four thousand three hundred and ninety\ntons in the southern fishery. * * * * *\n\nThese details will enable Congress to see with what a competition we\nhave to struggle for the continuance of this fishery, not to say its\nincrease. Against prohibitory duties in one country, and bounties to\nthe adventurers in both of those which are contending with each other\nfor the same object, ours have no auxiliaries, but poverty and rigorous\neconomy. The business, unaided, is a wretched one. The Dutch have\npeculiar advantages for the northern fishery, as being within six or\neight days' sail of the grounds, as navigating with more economy than any\nother nation in Europe, their seamen content with lower wages, and their\nmerchants with lower profit. Yet the memorial No. 13, from a committee of\nthe whale merchants to the States General of Holland, in the year 1775,\nstates that fourteen millions of guilders, equal to five million six\nhundred thousand dollars, has been lost in that fishery in forty-seven\nyears, being about one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year. The\nStates General, thereupon, gave a bounty of thirty guilders a man to\nthe fishermen. A person immediately acquainted with the British whale\nfishery, and whose information merits confidence, has given assurance\nthat the ships employed in their northern fishery, in 1788, sunk \u00a3800\neach, on an average, more than the amount of the produce and bounties.\nAn English ship of three hundred tons and forty-two seamen, in this\nfishery, generally brings home, after a four months' voyage, twenty-five\ntons of oil, worth \u00a3437 10_s._ sterling; but the wages of the officers\nand seamen will be \u00a3400; there remain but \u00a337 10_s._, not worth taking\ninto account, towards the outfit and merchants' profit. These, then,\nmust be paid by the Government; and it is on this idea that the British\nbounty is calculated.\n\nOur vessels for the northern fishery average sixty-four tons, and cost,\nwhen built, fitted out, and victualled for the first voyage, about\nthree thousand dollars. They have taken, on an average, the three last\nyears, according to the statement No. 12, eighteen tons of oil, worth,\nat our market, nine hundred dollars, which are to pay all expenses, and\nsubsist the fishermen and merchant. Our vessels for the southern fishery\naverage one hundred and forty tons, and cost, when built, fitted out,\nand victualled, for their first voyage, about six thousand five hundred\ndollars. They have taken on an average, the three last years, according\nto the same statement, thirty-two tons of oil each, worth at our market\nthree thousand two hundred dollars, which are, in like manner, to pay\nall expenses, and subsist the owners and navigators. These expenses\nare great, as the voyages are generally of twelve months' duration. No\nhope can arise of their condition being bettered by an augmentation of\nthe price of oil. This is kept down by the competition of the vegetable\noils, which answer the same purposes, not quite so well, but well enough\nto become preferable, were the price to be raised, and so well, indeed,\nas to be more generally used than the fish oils for lighting houses and\ncities.\n\nThe American whale fishery is principally followed by the inhabitants\nof the island of Nantucket--a sand bar of about fifteen miles long, and\nthree broad, capable of maintaining, by its agriculture, about twenty\nfamilies; but it employed in these fisheries, before the war, between\nfive or six thousand men and boys; and, in the only harbor it possesses,\nit had one hundred and forty vessels, one hundred and thirty-two of which\nwere of the larger kind, as being employed in the southern fishery. In\nagriculture, then, they have no resource; and, if that of their fishery\ncannot be pursued from their own habitations, it is natural they should\nseek others from which it can be followed, and preferably those where\nthey will find a sameness of language, religion, laws, habits, and\nkindred. A foreign emissary has lately been among them, for the purpose\nof renewing the invitations to a change of situation. But, attached to\ntheir native country, they prefer continuing in it, if their continuance\nthere can be made supportable.\n\nThis brings us to the question, what relief does the condition of this\nfishery require?\n\n1. A remission of duties on the articles used for their calling.\n\n2. A retaliating duty on foreign oils, coming to seek a competition with\nthem in or from our ports.\n\n3. Free markets abroad.\n\n1. The remission of duties will stand on nearly the same ground with\nthat to the cod fishermen.\n\n2. The only nation whose oil is brought hither for competition with our\nown, makes ours pay a duty of about eighty-two dollars the ton, in their\nports. Theirs is brought here, too, to be reshipped fraudulently, under\nour flag, into ports where it could not be received under theirs, and\nought not to be covered by ours, if we mean to preserve our own admission\ninto them.\n\nThe 3d and principal object is to find markets for the vent of oil.\n\nPortugal, England, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Russia, the Hanse\ntowns, supply themselves and something more. Spain and Italy receive\nsupplies from England, and need the less, as their skies are clearer.\nFrance is the only country which can take our surplus, and they take\nprincipally of the common oil; as the habit is but commencing with\nthem of ascribing a just value to spermaceti whale. Some of this,\nhowever, finds its vent there. There was, indeed, a particular interest\nperpetually soliciting the exclusion of our oils from their markets. The\nlate government there saw well that what we should lose thereby would be\ngained by others, not by themselves. And we are to hope that the present\ngovernment, as wise and friendly, will also view us, not as rivals,\nbut as co-operators against a common rival. Friendly arrangements with\nthem, and accommodation to mutual interest, rendered easier by friendly\ndispositions existing on both sides, may long secure to us this important\nresource for our seamen. Nor is it the interest of the fisherman alone,\nwhich calls for the cultivation of friendly arrangements with that\nnation; besides five-eights of our whale oil, and two-thirds of our salted\nfish, they take from us one-fourth of our tobacco, three-fourths of our\nlive stock * * * * * a considerable and growing portion of our rice,\ngreat supplies, occasionally, of other grain; in 1789, which, indeed,\nwas extraordinary, four millions of bushels of wheat, and upwards of\na million of bushels of rye and barley * * * * * and nearly the whole\ncarried in our own vessels. * * * * * They are a free market now, and\nwill, in time, be a valuable one for ships and ship timber, potash, and\npeltry.\n\nEngland is the market for the greatest part of our spermaceti oil. They\nimpose on all our oils a duty of eighteen pounds five shillings sterling\nthe ton, which, as to the common kind, is a prohibition, as has been\nbefore observed, and, as to the spermaceti, gives a preference of theirs\nover ours to that amount, so as to leave, in the end, but a scanty benefit\nto the fishermen; and, not long since, by a change of construction,\nwithout any change of law, it was made to exclude our oils from their\nports, when carried in our vessels. On some change of circumstance,\nit was construed back again to the reception of our oils, on paying\nalways, however, the same duty of eighteen pounds five shillings. This\nserves to show that the tenure by which we hold the admission of this\ncommodity in their markets, is as precarious as it is hard. Nor can it\nbe announced that there is any disposition on their part to arrange this\nor any other commercial matter, to mutual convenience. The _ex parte_\nregulations which they have begun for mounting their navigation on the\nruins of ours, can only be opposed by counter regulations on our part.\nAnd the loss of seamen, the natural consequence of lost and obstructed\nmarkets for our fish and oil, calls, in the first place, for serious and\ntimely attention. It will be too late when the seaman shall have changed\nhis vocation, or gone over to another interest. If we cannot recover and\nsecure for him these important branches of employment, it behooves us to\nreplace them by others equivalent. We have three nurseries for forming\nseamen:\n\n1. Our coasting trade, already on a safe footing.\n\n2. Our fisheries, which, in spite of natural advantages, give just cause\nof anxiety.\n\n3. Our carrying trade, our only resource of indemnification for what we\nlose in the other. The produce of the United States, which is carried\nto foreign markets, is extremely bulky. That part of it which is now\nin the hands of foreigners, and which we may resume into our own,\nwithout touching the rights of those nations who have met us in fair\narrangements by treaty, or the interests of those who, by their voluntary\nregulations, have paid so just and liberal a respect to our interests,\nas being measured back to them again, places both parties on as good\nground, perhaps, as treaties could place them--the proportion, I say,\nof our carrying trade, which may be resumed without affecting either of\nthese descriptions of nations, will find constant employment for ten\nthousand seamen, be worth two millions of dollars, annually, will go\non augmenting with the population of the United States, secure to us a\nfull indemnification for the seamen we lose, and be taken wholly from\nthose who force us to this act of self protection in navigation.\n\nHence, too, would follow, that their Newfoundland ships, not receiving\nprovisions from us in their bottoms, nor permitted (by a law of their\nown) to receive in ours, must draw their subsistence from Europe, which\nwould increase that part of their expenses in the proportion of four to\nseven, and so far operate as a duty towards restoring the level between\nthem and us. The tables No. 2 and 12, will show the quantity of tonnage,\nand, consequently, the mass of seamen whose interests are in distress;\nand No. 17, the materials for indemnification.\n\nIf regulations exactly the counterpart of those established against\nus, would be ineffectual, from a difference of circumstances, other\nregulations equivalent can give no reasonable ground of complaint to any\nnation. Admitting their right of keeping their markets to themselves,\nours cannot be denied of keeping our carrying trade to ourselves. And\nif there be anything unfriendly in this, it was in the first example.\n\nThe loss of seamen, unnoticed, would be followed by other losses in a long\ntrain. If we have no seamen, our ships will be useless, consequently our\nship timber, iron, and hemp; our ship building will be at an end, ship\ncarpenters go over to other nations, our young men have no call to the\nsea, our produce, carried in foreign bottoms, be saddled with war-freight\nand insurance in times of war; and the history of the last hundred years\nshows, that the nation which is our carrier has three years of war for\nevery four years of peace. (No. 18.) We lose, during the same periods,\nthe carriage for belligerent powers, which the neutrality of our flag\nwould render an incalculable source of profit; we lose at this moment\nthe carriage of our own produce to the annual amount of two millions\nof dollars, which, in the possible progress of the encroachment, may\nextend to five or six millions, the worth of the whole, with an increase\nin the proportion of the increase of our numbers. It is easier, as well\nas better, to stop this train at its entrance, than when it shall have\nruined or banished whole classes of useful and industrious citizens.\n\nIt will doubtless be thought expedient that the resumption suggested\nshould take effect so gradually, as not to endanger the loss of\nproduce for the want of transportation; but that, in order to create\ntransportation, the whole plan should be developed, and made known at\nonce, that the individuals who may be disposed to lay themselves out\nfor the carrying business, may make their calculations on a full view\nof all circumstances.\n\nOn the whole, the historical view we have taken of these fisheries,\nproves they are so poor in themselves, as to come to nothing with distant\nnations, who do not support them from their treasury. We have seen that\nthe advantages of our position place our fisheries on a ground somewhat\nhigher, such as to relieve our treasury from giving them support; but not\nto permit it to draw support from them, nor to dispense the government\nfrom the obligation of effectuating free markets for them; that, for\nthe great proportion of our salted fish, for our common oil, and a part\nof our spermaceti oil, markets may perhaps be preserved, by friendly\narrangements towards those nations whose arrangements are friendly to\nus, and the residue be compensated by giving to the seamen thrown out\nof business the certainty of employment in another branch, of which we\nhave the sole disposal.\n\n\nXXI.--_Opinion against the constitutionality of a National Bank._\n\n February 15, 1791.\n\nThe bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:--\n\n1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.\n\n2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of\nland; and so far is against the laws of _Mortmain_.[26]\n\n3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is\nagainst the laws of _alienage_.\n\n4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain\nline of successors; and so far changes the course of _Descents_.\n\n5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so\nfar is against the laws of _Forfeiture and Escheat_.\n\n6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and\nso far is against the laws of _Distribution_.\n\n7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national\nauthority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.\n\n8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of\nthe States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution\nfrom the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they will\nbe construed.\n\nI consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:\nThat \"all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,\nnor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the\npeople.\" [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries\nthus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession\nof a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.\n\nThe incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill,\nhave not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the\nConstitution.\n\n1. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are:\n1st. A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the\nUnited States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were\nit a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn\nit by the Constitution.\n\n2d. \"To borrow money.\" But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures\nthe borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any\nother money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public.\nThe operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions,\nand then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the\nlatter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by\nwhat name you please.\n\n3. To \"regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States,\nand with the Indian tribes.\" To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce,\nare very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of\ncommerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a\ndollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce\nthereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe\nregulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise\nof the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as\nmuch to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For\nthe power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the\ninternal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the\ncommerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with\nits own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say,\nits commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the\nIndian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a\nregulation of trade, but as \"productive of considerable advantages to\ntrade.\" Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special\nenumerations.\n\nII. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the\ntwo following:--\n\n1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States,\nthat is to say, \"to lay taxes for _the purpose_ of providing for the\ngeneral welfare.\" For the laying of taxes is the _power_, and the general\nwelfare the _purpose_ for which the power is to be exercised. They are\nnot to lay taxes _ad libitum for any purpose they please_; but only\nto _pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union_. In like\nmanner, they are not _to do anything they please_ to provide for the\ngeneral welfare, but only to _lay taxes_ for that purpose. To consider\nthe latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as\ngiving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which\nmight be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and\nsubsequent enumerations of power completely useless.\n\nIt would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of\ninstituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good\nof the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good\nor evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.\n\nIt is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either\nof two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the\nother parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the\nothers useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given\nthem. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated\npowers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be\ncarried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed _as\na means_ was rejected as _an end_ by the Convention which formed the\nConstitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to\nopen canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But\nthe whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in\ndebate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which\nwould render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies\non the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.\n\n2. The second general phrase is, \"to make all laws _necessary_ and\nproper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.\" But they can\nall be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not\n_necessary_, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.\n\nIt has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience\nin the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution\nallows only the means which are \"_necessary_,\" not those which are merely\n\"convenient\" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of\nconstruction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated\npower, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity\nmay not torture into a _convenience_ in some instance _or other_, to\n_some one_ of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up\nall the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before\nobserved. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to\nthe _necessary_ means, that is to say, to those means without which the\ngrant of power would be nugatory.\n\nBut let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on\nthis subject, page 3, states the only _general_ convenience to be, the\npreventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the\nStates and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating\nmedium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of\npaper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum\nof tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in\nevery State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries\nto the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the\nStates there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the\nseat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of\ninterest and salary in each State may be made by treasury orders on the\nState collector. This will take up the great export of the money he has\ncollected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it\nfrom being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce\nin favor of that State against the one in which the government resides,\nthe surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for\nthat commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if\nthere be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the\nbanks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the\nform of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent\nthe displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the\naid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with\nthat aid.\n\nPerhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more _convenient_ vehicle than\ntreasury orders. But a little _difference_ in the degree of _convenience_,\ncannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground\nfor assuming any non-enumerated power.\n\nBesides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements\nfor lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a\ncompetition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound\nto the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on\ntheir own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any\nother bank. That of Philadelphia, I believe, now does this business, by\ntheir post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid\nby any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone\nsuffices to prevent the existence of that _necessity_ which may justify\nthe assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into\neffect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and\nwell done, without this assumption; therefore, it does not stand on that\ndegree of _necessity_ which can honestly justify it.\n\nIt may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the\nStates, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to\na single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should\nbe a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But\nit does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists\nanywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go\non very well without it.\n\nCan it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two\nof _convenience_, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break\ndown the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such\nas those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent,\nthe acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws\nof monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can\njustify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our\nwhole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too straight-laced to\ncarry the constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the\nfoundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience\nof theirs?\n\nThe negative of the President is the shield provided by the constitution\nto protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the\nExecutive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures.\nThe present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States,\nand consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed\nunder its protection.\n\nIt must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of\neverything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear\nthat it is unauthorised by the Constitution; if the pro and the con\nhang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom\nof the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their\nopinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error,\nambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the\nnegative of the President.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [26] Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain\n so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for\n certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to\n communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.\n\n\nXXII.--_Opinion relative to locating the Ten Mile Square for the Federal\nGovernment, and building the Federal city._\n\n March 11, 1791.\n\nObjects which may merit the attention of the President, at Georgetown.\n\nThe commissioners to be called into action.\n\nDeeds of cession to be taken from the land-holders.\n\nSite of the capitol and President's house to be determined on.\n\nProclamation completing the location of the territory, and fixing the\nsite of the capitol.\n\nTown to be laid off. Squares of reserve are to be decided on for the\ncapitol, President's house, offices of government, townhouse, prison,\nmarket, and public walks.\n\nOther squares for present sale designated.\n\nTerms of sale to be settled. As there is not as yet a town legislature,\nand things may be done before there is one to prevent them, which yet it\nwould be desirable to prevent, it would seem justifiable and expedient\nthat the President should form a capitulary of such regulations as he may\nthink necessary to be observed, until there shall be a town legislature\nto undertake this office; such capitulary to be indented, signed, sealed,\nand recorded, according to the laws of conveyance in Maryland. And to\nbe referred to in every deed for conveyance of the lots to purchasers,\nso as to make a part thereof. The same thing might be effected, by\ninserting special covenants for every regulation in every deed; but the\nformer method is the shortest. I cannot help again suggesting here one\nregulation formerly suggested, to wit: To provide for the extinguishment\nof fires, and the openness and convenience of the town, by prohibiting\nhouses of excessive height. And making it unlawful to build on any one's\npurchase any house with more than two floors between the common level\nof the earth and the eaves, nor with any other floor in the roof than\none at the eaves. To consider in what way the contracts for the public\nbuildings shall be made, and whether as many bricks should not be made\nthis summer as may employ brick-layers in the beginning of the season\nof 1792, till more can be made in that season.\n\nWith respect to the amendment of the location so as to include\nBladensburgh. I am of opinion it may be done with the consent of the\nlegislature of Maryland, and that that consent may be so far counted\non, as to render it expedient to declare the location at once.\n\n [Illustration]\n\nThe location A B C D A having been once made, I consider as obligatory\nand unalterable, but by consent of parties, except so far as was\nnecessary to render it practicable by a correction of the beginning.\nThat correction might be lawfully made either by stopping at the river,\nor at the spring of Hunting creek, or by lengthening the course from the\ncourt-house so that the second course should strike the mouth of Hunting\ncreek. I am of opinion, therefore, that the beginning at the mouth of\nHunting creek, is legally justifiable. But I would advise the location\nE F G H E to be hazarded so as to include Bladensburgh, because it is\na better location, and I think will certainly be confirmed by Maryland.\nThat State will necessarily have to pass another act confirming whatever\nlocation shall be made, because her former act authorized the delegates\n_then_ in office, to convey the lands. But as they were not located, no\nconveyance has been made, and those persons are now out of office, and\ndispersed. Suppose the non-concurrence of Maryland should defeat the\nlocation E F G H E, it can only be done on this principle, that the first\nlocation A B C D A was valid, and unalterable, but by mutual consent.\nThen their non-concurrence will re-establish the first location A B C D\nA, and the second location will be good for the part E I D K E without\ntheir concurrence, and this will place us where we should be were we\nnow to complete the location E B C K E. Consequently, the experiment of\nan amendment proposed can lose nothing, and may gain, and probably will\ngain, the better location.\n\nWhen I say it can lose nothing, I count as nothing, the triangle A I E,\nwhich would be in neither of the locations. Perhaps this might be taken\nin afterwards, either with or without the consent of Virginia.\n\n\nXXIII.--_Report on the policy of securing particular marks to\nManufacturers, by law._\n\n December 9, 1791.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of\nRepresentatives the petition of Samuel Breck and others, proprietors of a\nsail-cloth manufactory in Boston, praying that they may have the exclusive\nprivilege of using particular marks for designating the sail-cloth of\ntheir manufactory, has had the same under consideration, and thereupon\n\nReports, That it would, in his opinion, contribute to fidelity in the\nexecution of manufacturers, to secure to every manufactory an exclusive\nright to some mark on its wares, proper to itself.\n\nThat this should be done by general laws, extending equal right to every\ncase to which the authority of the Legislature should be competent.\n\nThat these cases are of divided jurisdiction: Manufactures made and\nconsumed within a State being subject to State legislation, while those\nwhich are exported to foreign nations, or to another State, or into\nthe Indian Territory, are alone within the legislation of the General\nGovernment.\n\nThat it will, therefore, be reasonable for the General Government to\nprovide in this behalf by law for those cases of manufacture generally,\nand those only which relate to commerce with foreign nations, and among\nthe several States, and with the Indian Tribes.\n\nAnd that this may be done by permitting the owner of every manufactory, to\nenter in the records of the court of the district wherein his manufactory\nis, the name with which he chooses to mark or designate his wares, and\nrendering it penal in others to put the same mark to any other wares.\n\n\nXXIV.--_Opinion relative to the demolition of Mr. Carroll's house by\nMajor L'Enfant, in laying out the Federal City._\n\n December 11, 1791.\n\nObservations on Major L'Enfant's letter of December 7th, 1791, to the\nPresident, justifying his demolition of the house of Mr. Carroll, of\nDuddington.\n\nHe says that \"Mr. Carroll erected his house partly on a main street,\nand altogether on ground to which the public had a more immediate title\nthan himself could claim.\" When blaming Mr. Carroll, then, he considers\nthis as a street; but when justifying himself, he considers it not yet\nas a street, for to account for his not having pointed out to Carroll\na situation where he might build, he says, \"The President had not yet\nsanctioned the plan for the distribution of the city, nor determined\nif he would approve the situation of the several areas proposed to him\nin that plan for public use, and that I would have been highly to be\nblamed to have anticipated his opinion thereon.\" This latter exculpation\nis solid; the first is without foundation. The plan of the city has not\nyet been definitely determined by the President. Sale to individuals, or\npartition decide the plan as far as these sales or partitions go. A deed\nwith the whole plan annexed, executed by the President, and recorded, will\nultimately fix it. But till a sale, or partition, or deed, it is open\nto alteration. Consequently, there is as yet no such thing as a street,\nexcept adjacent to the lots actually sold or divided; the erection of\na house in any part of the ground cannot as yet be a nuisance in law.\nMr. Carroll is tenant in common of the soil with the public, and the\nerection of a house by a tenant in common on the common property, is no\nnuisance. Mr. Carroll has acted imprudently, intemperately, foolishly;\nbut he has not acted illegally. There must be an establishment of the\nstreets, before his house can become a nuisance in the eye of the law.\nTherefore, till that establishment, neither Major L'Enfant, nor the\ncommissioners, would have had a right to demolish his house, without\nhis consent.\n\nThe Major says he had as much right to pull down a house, as to cut down\na tree.\n\nThis is true, if he has received no authority to do either, but still\nthere will be this difference: To cut down a tree or to demolish a house\nin the soil of another, is a trespass; but the cutting a tree, in this\ncountry, is so slight a trespass, that a man would be thought litigious\nwho should prosecute it; if he prosecuted civilly, a jury would give\nsmall damages; if criminally, the judge would not inflict imprisonment,\nnor impose but a small fine. But the demolition of a house is so gross\na trespass, that any man would prosecute it; if civilly, a jury would\ngive great damages; if criminally, the judge would punish heavily by\nfine and imprisonment. In the present case, if Carroll was to bring a\ncivil action, the jury would probably punish his folly by small damages;\nbut if he were to prosecute criminally, the judge would as probably\nvindicate the insult on the laws, and the breach of the peace, by heavy\nfines and imprisonment. So that if Major L'Enfant is right in saying he\nhad as much authority to pull down a house as to cut down a tree, still\nhe would feel a difference in the punishment of the law.\n\nBut is he right in saying he had as much authority to pull down a house\nas to cut down a tree? I do not know what have been the authorities\ngiven him expressly or by _implication_, but I can very readily conceive\nthat the authorities which he has received, whether from the President\nor from the commissioners, whether verbal or written, may have gone to\nthe demolition of trees, and not houses. I am sure he has received no\nauthority, either from the President or commissioners, either expressly\nor by implication, to pull down houses. An order to him to mark on the\nground the lines of the streets and lots, might imply an order to remove\ntrees or _small_ obstructions, _where they insuperably prevented his\noperations_; but a person must know little of geometry who could not,\nin an open field, designate streets and lots, even where a line passed\nthrough a house, without pulling the house down.\n\nIn truth, the blame on Major L'Enfant, is for having pulled down the\nhouse, of his own authority, and when he had reason to believe he was\nin opposition, to the sentiments of the President; and his fault is\naggravated by its having been done to gratify private resentment against\nMr. Carroll, and most probably not because it was necessary; and the\nstyle in which he writes the justification of his act, shows that a\ncontinuation of the same resentment renders him still unable to acquiesce\nunder the authority from which he has been reproved.\n\nHe desires a line of demarcation between his office, and that of the\ncommissioners.\n\nWhat should be this line? and who is to draw it? If we consider the\nmatter under the _act of Congress_ only, the President has authority\nonly to name the commissioners, and to approve or disapprove certain\nproceedings of theirs. They have the whole executive power, and stand\nbetween the President and the subordinate agents. In this view, they may\nemploy or dismiss, order and countermand, take on themselves such parts\nof the execution as they please, and assign other parts to subordinate\nagents. Consequently, under the _act of Congress_, their will is the\nline of demarcation between subordinate agents, while no such line\ncan exist between themselves and their agents. Under the deed from the\nproprietors to the President, his powers are much more ample. I do not\naccurately recollect the tenor of the deed; but I am pretty sure it was\nsuch as to put much more ample power into the hands of the President,\nand to commit to him the whole execution of whatever is to be done under\nthe deed; and this goes particularly to the laying out the town: so\nthat as to this, the President is certainly authorized to draw the line\nof demarcation between L'Enfant and the commissioners. But I believe\nthere is no necessity for it, as far as I have been able to judge, from\nconversations and consultations with the commissioners. I think they\nare disposed to follow implicitly the will of the President, whenever\nthey can find it out; but L'Enfant's letters do not breathe the same\nmoderation or acquiescence; and I think it would be much safer to say\nto him, \"the orders of the commissioners are your line of demarcation,\"\nthan by attempting to define his powers, to give him a line where he\nmay meet with the commissioners foot to foot, and chicane and raise\nopposition to their orders whenever he thinks they pass his line. I\nconfess, that on a view of L'Enfant's proceedings and letters latterly,\nI am thoroughly persuaded that, to render him useful, his temper must\nbe subdued; and that the only means of preventing his giving constant\ntrouble to the President, is to submit him to the unlimited control of\nthe commissioners; we know the discretion and forbearance with which\nthey will exercise it.\n\n\nXXV.--_Opinion relative to certain lands on Lake Erie, sold by the United\nStates to Pennsylvania._\n\n December 19, 1791.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the President of the\nUnited States, a letter from the Governor of Pennsylvania, with the\ndocuments therein mentioned, on the subject of certain lands on Lake\nErie, having had the same under consideration, thereupon Reports:--\n\nThat Congress, by their resolution of June 6th, 1788, directed the\nGeographer General of the United States to ascertain the quantity of\nland belonging to the United States between Pennsylvania and Lake Erie,\nand authorized a sale thereof.\n\nThat a sale was accordingly made to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.\n\nThat Congress, by their resolution of September 4th, 1788, relinquished to\nthe said commonwealth all their right to the government and jurisdiction\nof the said tract of land; but the right of soil was not transferred by\nthe resolution.\n\nThat a survey of the said tract has been since made, and the amount of\nthe purchase money been settled between the comptrollers of the United\nStates and of the said commonwealth, and that the Governor of Pennsylvania\ndeclares in the said letter, to the President of the United States, that\nhe is ready to close the transaction on behalf of the said commonwealth.\nThat there is no person at present authorized, by law, to convey to the\nsaid commonwealth the right of soil, in the said tract of land.\n\nAnd the Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that the said letter\nand documents should be laid before the legislature of the United States\nto make such provision by law for conveying the said right of soil, as\nthey in their wisdom shall think fit.\n\n\nXXVI.--_Report relative to negotiations with Spain to secure the free\nnavigation of the Mississippi, and a port on the same._\n\n December 22, 1791.\n\nThe Secretary of State reports to the President of the United States,\nthat one of the commissioners of Spain, in the name of both, has lately\ncommunicated to him verbally, by order of his court, that his Catholic\nMajesty, apprized of our solicitude to have some arrangement made\nrespecting our free navigation of the river Mississippi, and the use of\na port thereon, is ready to enter into treaty thereon at Madrid.\n\nThe Secretary of State is of opinion that this overture should be attended\nto without delay, and that the proposal of treating at Madrid, though not\nwhat might have been desired, should yet be accepted, and a commission\nplenipotentiary made out for the purpose.\n\nThat Mr. Carmichael, the present charg\u00e9 de affaires of the United States\nat Madrid, from the local acquaintance which he must have acquired with\npersons and circumstances, would be an useful and proper member of the\ncommission; but that it would be useful also to join with him some person\nmore particularly acquainted with the circumstances of the navigation\nto be treated of.\n\nThat the fund appropriated by the act providing the means of intercourse\nbetween the United States and foreign nations, will insufficiently furnish\nthe ordinary and regular demands on it, and is consequently inadequate\nto the mission of an additional commissioner express from hence.\n\nThat, therefore, it will be advisable, on this account, as well as for\nthe sake of despatch, to constitute some one of the ministers of the\nUnited States in Europe, jointly with Mr. Carmichael, commissioners\nplenipotentiary for the special purpose of negotiating and concluding,\nwith any person or persons duly authorized by his Catholic Majesty, a\nconvention or treaty for the free navigation of the river Mississippi by\nthe citizens of the United States, under such accommodations with respect\nto a port, and other circumstances, as may render the said navigation\npracticable, useful, and free from dispute; saving to the President and\nSenate their respective rights as to their ratification of the same; and\nthat the said negotiation be at Madrid, or such other place in Spain,\nas shall be desired by his Catholic Majesty.\n\n\n March 18, 1792.\n\nThe appointment of Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Short, as commissioners to\nnegotiate, with the court of Spain, a treaty or convention relative to\nthe navigation of the Mississippi, and which perhaps may be extended to\nother interests, rendering it necessary that the subjects to be treated\nof should be developed, and the conditions of arrangement explained:\n\nThe Secretary of State reports to the President of the United States\nthe following observations on the subjects of negotiation between the\nUnited States of America and the court of Spain, to be communicated by\nway of instruction to the commissioners of the United States, appointed\nas before mentioned, to manage that negotiation.\n\nThese subjects are,\n\nI. Boundary.\n\nII. The navigation of the Mississippi.\n\nIII. Commerce.\n\nI. As to boundary, that between Georgia and Florida is the only one which\nwill need any explanation. Spain sets up a claim to possessions within\nthe State of Georgia, founded on her having rescued them by force from\nthe British during the late war. The following view of the subject seems\nto admit no reply:\n\nThe several States now comprising the United States of America, were, from\ntheir first establishment, separate and distinct societies, dependent on\nno other society of men whatever. They continued at the head of their\nrespective governments the executive magistrate who presided over the\none they had left, and thereby secured, in effect, a constant amity with\nthe nation. In this stage of their government their several boundaries\nwere fixed; and particularly the southern boundary of Georgia, the only\none now in question, was established at the 31st degree of latitude\nfrom the Apalachicola westwardly; and the western boundary, originally\nthe Pacific ocean, was, by the treaty of Paris, reduced to the middle\nof the Mississippi. The part which our chief magistrate took in a war,\nwaged against us by the nation among whom he resided, obliged us to\ndiscontinue him, and to name one within every State. In the course of\nthis war we were joined by France as an ally, and by Spain and Holland\nas associates; having a common enemy, each sought that common enemy\nwherever they could find him. France, on our invitation, landed a large\narmy within our territories, continued it with us two years, and aided\nus in recovering sundry places from the possession of the enemy. But she\ndid not pretend to keep possession of the places rescued. Spain entered\ninto the remote western part of our territory, dislodged the common\nenemy from several of the posts they held therein, to the annoyance\nof Spain; and perhaps thought it necessary to remain in some of them,\nas the only means of preventing their return. We, in like manner,\ndislodged them from several posts in the same western territory, to wit:\nVincennes, Cahokia, Kaskaskia, &c., rescued the inhabitants, and retained\nconstantly afterwards both them and the territory under our possession\nand government. At the conclusion of the war, Great Britain, on the\n30th of November, 1782, by treaty acknowledged our independence, and\nour boundary, to wit: the Mississippi to the west, and the completion of\nthe 31st degree, &c. to the south. In her treaty with Spain, concluded\nseven weeks afterwards, to wit, January 20th, 1783, she ceded to her\nthe two Floridas, which had been defined in the proclamation of 1763,\nand Minorca; and by the eighth article of the treaty, Spain agreed\nto restore, _without compensation_, all the territories conquered by\nher, and not included in the treaty, either under the head of cessions\nor restitutions, that is to say, all except Minorca and the Floridas.\nAccording to this stipulation, Spain was expressly bound to have delivered\nup the possessions she had taken within the limits of Georgia, to Great\nBritain, if they were conquests on Great Britain, who was to deliver\nthem over to the United States; or rather, she should have delivered\nthem to the United States themselves, as standing _quoad hoc_ in the\nplace of Great Britain. And she was bound by natural rights to deliver\nthem to the same United States on a much stronger ground, as the real\nand only proprietors of those places which she had taken possession\nof in a moment of danger, without having had any cause of war with the\nUnited States, to whom they belonged, and without having declared any;\nbut, on the contrary, conducting herself in other respects as a friend\nand associate. _Vattel_, 1. 3, 122.\n\nIt is an established principle, that conquest gives only an inchoate\ntreaty of peace, which does not become perfect till confirmed by the\ntreaty of peace, and by a renunciation or abandonment by the former\nproprietor. Had Great Britain been that former proprietor, she was so far\nfrom confirming to Spain the right to the territory of Georgia, invaded\nby Spain, that she expressly relinquished to the United States any right\nthat might remain in her; and afterwards completed that relinquishment,\nby procuring and consolidating with it the agreement of Spain herself to\nrestore such territory without compensation. It is still more palpable,\nthat a war existing between two nations, as Spain and Great Britain,\ncould give to neither the right to seize and appropriate the territory\nof a third, which is even neutral, much less which is an associate in\nthe war, as the United States were with Spain. See, on this subject,\n_Grotius_, 1. 3, c. 6, \u00a7 26. _Puffendorf_, 1. 8, c. 17, \u00a7 23. _Vattel_,\n1. 3, \u00a7 197, 198.\n\nOn the conclusion of the general peace, the United States lost no time\nin requiring from Spain an evacuation of their territory This has been\nhitherto delayed by means which we need not explain to that court, but\nwhich have been equally contrary to our right and to our consent.\n\nShould Spain pretend, as has been intimated, that there was a secret\narticle of treaty between the United States and Great Britain, agreeing,\nif at the close of the war the latter should retain the Floridas, that\nthen the southern boundary of Georgia should be the completion of the\n32d degree of latitude, the commissioners may safely deny all knowledge\nof the fact, and refuse conference on any such postulatum. Or, should\nthey find it necessary to enter into any argument on the subject, they\nwill of course do it hypothetically; and in that way may justly say, on\nthe part of the United States; suppose that the United States, exhausted\nby a bloody and expensive war with Great Britain, might have been\nwilling to have purchased peace by relinquishing, under a particular\ncontingency, a small part of their territory, it does not follow that\nthe same United States, recruited and better organized, must relinquish\nthe same territory to Spain without striking a blow. The United States,\ntoo, have irrevocably put it out of their power to do it, by a new\nconstitution, which guarantees every State against the invasion of its\nterritory. A disastrous war, indeed, might, by necessity, supersede this\nstipulation, (as necessity is above all law,) and oblige them to abandon\na part of a State; but nothing short of this can justify or obtain such\nan abandonment.\n\nThe southern limits of Georgia depend chiefly on,\n\n1. The charter of Carolina to the lords proprietors, in 1663, extending\nsouthwardly to the river Matheo, now called St. John, supposed in the\ncharter to be in latitude 31, and so west in a direct line as far as\nthe South Sea. See the charter in 4th[27] Memoires de l'Amerique, 554.\n\n2. On the proclamation of the British King, in 1763, establishing the\nboundary between Georgia and the two Floridas to begin on the Mississippi,\nin thirty-one degrees of latitude north of the equator, and running\neastwardly to the Appalachicola; thence, along the said river to the\nmouth of the Flint; thence, in a direct line, to the source of St. Mary's\nriver, and down the same to the ocean. This proclamation will be found\nin Postlethwayte voce \"British America.\"\n\n3. On the treaties between the United States and Great Britain, of\nNovember 30, 1782, and September 3, 1783, repeating and confirming these\nancient boundaries,--\n\nThere was an intermediate transaction, to wit: a convention concluded at\nthe Pardo, in 1739, whereby it was agreed that Ministers Plenipotentiary\nshould be immediately appointed by Spain and Great Britain for settling\nthe limits of Florida and Carolina. The convention is to be found in the\ncollections of treaties. But the proceedings of the Plenipotentiaries\nare unknown here. _Qu._ If it was on that occasion that the southern\nboundary of Carolina was transferred from the latitude of Matheo or St.\nJohn's river further north to the St. Mary's? Or was it the proclamation\nof 1763, which first removed this boundary? [If the commissioners can\nprocure in Spain a copy of whatever was agreed on in consequence of the\nconvention of the Pardo, it is a desirable State paper here.]\n\nTo this demonstration of our rights may be added the explicit declaration\nof the court of Spain, that she would accede to them. This took place\nin conversations and correspondence thereon between Mr. Jay, Minister\nPlenipotentiary for the United States at the court at Madrid, the Marquis\nde La Fayette, and the Count de Florida Blanca. Monsieur de La Fayette,\nin his letter of February 19, 1783, to the Count de Florida Blanca,\nstates the result of their conversations on limits in these words:\n\"With respect to limits, his Catholic Majesty has adopted those that\nare determined by the preliminaries of the 30th of November, between the\nUnited States and the court of London.\" The Count de Florida Blanca, in\nhis answer of February 22d, to M. de La Fayette, says, \"although it is his\nMajesty's intention to abide for the present by the limits established\nby the treaty of the 30th of November, 1782, between the English and\nthe Americans, the King intends to inform himself particularly whether\nit can be in any ways inconvenient or prejudicial to settle that affair\namicably with the United States;\" and M. de La Fayette, in his letter of\nthe same day to Mr. Jay, wherein he had inserted the preceding, says,\n\"on receiving the answer of the Count de Florida Blanca, (to wit: his\nanswer, before mentioned, to M. de La Fayette,) I desired an explanation\nrespecting the addition that relates to the limits. I was answered, that\nit was a fixed principle to abide by the limits established by the treaty\nbetween the English and the Americans; that his remark related only to\nmere unimportant details, which he wished to receive from the Spanish\ncommandants, which would be amicably regulated, and _would by no means\noppose the general principle_. I asked him, before the Ambassador of\nFrance, [M. de Montmorin,] whether he would give me his word of honor\nfor it; he assured me he would, and that I might engage it to the United\nStates.\" See the report sent herewith.\n\nII.--The navigation of the Mississippi.\n\nOur right to navigate that river, from its source to where our southern\nboundary strikes it, is not questioned. It is from that point downwards,\nonly, that the exclusive navigation is claimed by Spain; that is to\nsay, where she holds the country on both sides, to wit: Louisiana on\nthe west, and Florida on the east.\n\nOur right to participate in the navigation of that part of the river,\nalso, is to be considered, under\n\n1. The Treaty of Paris of 1763,\n\n2. The Revolution Treaty of 1782-3.\n\n3. The law of nature and nations.\n\n1. The war of 1755-1763, was carried on jointly by Great Britain and\nthe thirteen colonies, now the United States of America, against France\nand Spain. At the peace which was negotiated by our common magistrate, a\nright was secured to the subjects of Great Britain (the common designation\nof all those under his government) to navigate the Mississippi in its\nwhole breadth and length, from its source to the sea, and expressly\nthat part which is between the island of New Orleans and the right bank\nof the river, as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth;\nand that the vessels should not be stopped, visited, or subjected to\nthe payment of any duty whatsoever. These are the words of the treaty,\narticle VII. Florida was at the same time ceded by Spain, and its extent\nwestwardly was fixed to the lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas, and the\nriver Mississippi; and Spain received soon after from France a cession\nof the island of New Orleans, and all the country she held westward of\nthe Mississippi, subject of course to our right of navigating between\nthat country and the island previously granted to us by France. This\nright was not parcelled out to us in severalty, that is to say, to each\nthe exclusive navigation of so much of the river as was adjacent to our\nseveral shores--in which way it would have been useless to all--but it\nwas placed on that footing on which alone it could be worth anything,\nto wit: as a right to all to navigate the whole length of the river in\ncommon. The import of the terms and the reason of the thing prove it\nwas a right of common in the whole, and not a several right to each of a\nparticular part. To which may be added the evidence of the stipulation\nitself, that we should navigate between New Orleans and the western\nbank, which, being adjacent to none of our States, could be held by us\nonly as a right of common. Such was the nature of our right to navigate\nthe Mississippi, as far as established by the treaty of Paris.\n\n2. In the course of the Revolutionary war, in which the thirteen colonies,\nSpain, and France, were opposed to Great Britain, Spain took possession\nof several posts held by the British in Florida. It is unnecessary to\ninquire whether the possession of half a dozen posts scattered through\na country of seven or eight hundred miles extent, could be considered\nas the possession and conquest of that country. If it was, it gave\nstill but an inchoate right, as was before explained, which could not\nbe perfected but by the relinquishment of the former possession at the\nclose of the war; but certainly it could not be considered as a conquest\n_of the river_, even against Great Britain, since the possession of\nthe shores, to wit, of the island of New Orleans on the one side, and\nLouisiana on the other, having undergone no change, the right in the water\nwould remain the same, if considered only in its relation to them; and\nif considered as a distinct right, independent of the shores, then no\nnaval victories obtained by Spain over Great Britain, in the course of\nthe war, gave her the color of conquest over any water which the British\nfleet could enter. Still less can she be considered as having conquered\nthe river, as against the United States, with whom she was not at war.\nWe had a common right of navigation in the part of the river between\nFlorida, the island of New Orleans, and the western bank, and nothing\nwhich passed between Spain and Great Britain, either during the war, or\nat its conclusion, could lessen that right. Accordingly, at the treaty\nof November, 1782, Great Britain confirmed the rights of the United\nStates to the navigation of the river, from its source to its mouth,\nand in January, 1783, completed the right of Spain to the territory of\nFlorida, by an absolute relinquishment of all her rights in it. This\nrelinquishment could not include the navigation held by the United States\nin their own right, because this right existed in themselves only, and\nwas not in Great Britain. If it added anything to the rights of Spain\nrespecting the river between the eastern and western banks, it could only\nbe that portion of right which Great Britain had retained to herself in\nthe treaty with the United States, held seven weeks before, to wit, a\nright of using it in common with the United States.\n\nSo that as by the treaty of 1763, the United States had obtained a common\nright of navigating the whole river from its source to its mouth, so\nby the treaty of 1782, that common right was confirmed to them by the\nonly power who could pretend claims against them, founded on the state\nof war; nor has that common right been transferred to Spain by either\nconquest or cession.\n\nBut our right is built on ground still broader and more unquestionable,\nto wit:\n\n3. On the law of nature and nations.\n\nIf we appeal to this, as we feel it written on the heart of man, what\nsentiment is written in deeper characters than that the ocean is free\nto all men, and their rivers to all their inhabitants? Is there a man,\nsavage or civilized, unbiased by habit, who does not feel and attest\nthis truth? Accordingly, in all tracts of country united under the same\npolitical society, we find this natural right universally acknowledged and\nprotected by laying the navigable rivers open to all their inhabitants.\nWhen their rivers enter the limits of another society, if the right of\nthe upper inhabitants to descend the stream is in any case obstructed,\nit is an act of force by a stronger society against a weaker, condemned\nby the judgment of mankind. The late case of Antwerp and the Scheldt\nwas a striking proof a general union of sentiment on this point; as it\nis believed that Amsterdam had scarcely an advocate out of Holland, and\neven there its pretensions were advocated on the ground of treaties,\nand not of natural right. (The commissioners would do well to examine\nthoroughly what was written on this occasion.) The commissioners will\nbe able perhaps to find, either in the practice or the pretensions of\nSpain, as to the Dauro, Tagus, and Guadiana, some acknowledgments of\nthis principle on the part of that nation. This sentiment of right in\nfavor of the upper inhabitants must become stronger in the proportion\nwhich their extent of country bears to the lower. The United States\nhold 600,000 square miles of habitable territory on the Mississippi and\nits branches, and this river and its branches afford many thousands of\nmiles of navigable waters penetrating this territory in all its parts.\nThe inhabitable grounds of Spain below our boundary and bordering on\nthe river, which alone can pretend any fear of being incommoded by our\nuse of the river, are not the thousandth part of that extent. This vast\nportion of the territory of the United States has no other outlet for\nits productions, and these productions are of the bulkiest kind. And in\ntruth, their passage down the river may not only be innocent, as to the\nSpanish subjects on the river, but cannot fail to enrich them far beyond\ntheir present condition. The real interests then of all the inhabitants,\nupper and lower, concur in fact with their rights.\n\nIf we appeal to the law of nature and nations, as expressed by writers\non the subject, it is agreed by them, that, were the river, where it\npasses between Florida and Louisiana, the exclusive right of Spain, still\nan innocent passage along it is a natural right in those inhabiting its\nborders above. It would indeed be what those writers call an imperfect\nright, because the modification of its exercise depends in a considerable\ndegree on the conveniency of the nation through which they are to pass.\nBut it is still a right as real as any other right, however well-defined;\nand were it to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not\nnecessary for the peace or safety of its inhabitants, as to render its\nuse impracticable to us, it would then be an injury, of which we should\nbee entitled to demand redress. The right of the upper inhabitants to\nuse this navigation is the counterpart to that of those possessing the\nshore below, and founded in the same natural relations with the soil\nand water. And the line at which their rights meet is to be advanced\nor withdrawn, so as to equalize the inconveniences resulting to each\nparty from the exercise of the right by the other. This estimate is to\nbe fairly made with a mutual disposition to make equal sacrifices, and\nthe numbers on each side are to have their due weight in the estimate.\nSpain holds so very small a tract of habitable land on either side below\nour boundary, that it may in fact be considered as a strait of the sea;\nfor though it is eighty leagues from our boundary to the mouth of the\nriver, yet it is only here and there in spots and slips that the land\nrises above the level of the water in times of inundation. There are,\nthen, and ever must be, so few inhabitants on her part of the river,\nthat the freest use of its navigation may be admitted to us without\ntheir annoyance. For authorities on this subject, see Grot. 1. 2. c. 2\n\u00a7 11, 12, 13, c. 3. \u00a7 7, 8, 12. Puffendorf, 1. 3. c. 3. \u00a7 3, 4, 5, 6.\nWolff's Inst. \u00a7 310, 311, 312. Vattel, 1. 1. \u00a7 292. 1. 2. \u00a7 123 to 139.\n\n [Illustration]\n\nIt is essential to the interests of both parties that the navigation\nof the river be free to both, on the footing on which it was defined by\nthe treaty of Paris, viz.: through its whole breadth. The channel of the\nMississippi is remarkably winding, crossing and recrossing perpetually\nfrom one side to the other of the general bed of the river. Within the\nelbows thus made by the channel, there is generally an eddy setting\nupwards, and it is by taking advantage of these eddies, and constantly\ncrossing from one to another of them, that boats are enabled to ascend\nthe river. Without this right the whole river would be impracticable\nboth to the Americans and Spaniards.\n\nIt is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means,\nwithout which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow\ntheir end. Thus, a right to navigate a river, draws to it a right to\nmoor vessels to its shores, to land on them in cases of distress, or\nfor other necessary purposes, &c. This principle is founded in natural\nreason, is evidenced by the common sense of mankind, and declared by\nthe writers before quoted. See Grot. 1. 2. c. 2. \u00a7 15. Puffend. 1. 3.\nc. 3. \u00a7 8. Vattel, 1. 2. \u00a7 129.\n\nThe Roman law, which, like other municipal laws, placed the navigation\nof their rivers on the footing of nature, as to their own citizens,\nby declaring them public,[28] (flumina publica sunt, hoc est populi\nRomani, Inst. 2. t. 1. \u00a7 2,) declared also that the right to the use\nof the shores was incident to that of the water. Ibid, \u00a7 1, 3, 4, 5.\nThe laws of every country probably do the same. This must have been so\nunderstood between France and Great Britain, at the treaty of Paris, when\na right was ceded to British subjects to navigate the whole river, and\nexpressly that part between the island of New Orleans and the western\nbank, without stipulating a word about the use of the shores, though\nboth of them belonged then to France, and were to belong immediately\nto Spain. Had not the use of the shores been considered as incident to\nthat of the water, it would have been expressly stipulated; since its\nnecessity was too obvious to have escaped either party. Accordingly, all\nBritish subjects used the shores habitually for the purposes necessary\nto the navigation of the river; and when a Spanish Governor undertook\nat one time to forbid this, and even cut loose the vessels fastening\nto their shores, a British frigate went immediately, moored itself to\nthe shore opposite to the town of New Orleans, and set out guards with\norders to fire on such as might attempt to disturb her moorings. The\nGovernor acquiesced, the right was constantly exercised afterwards, and\nno interruption ever offered.\n\nThis incidental right extends even beyond the shores, where circumstances\nrender it necessary to the exercise of the principal right; as, in the\ncase of a vessel damaged, where the mere shore could not be a safe deposit\nfor her cargo till she could be repaired, she may remove it into safe\nground off the river. The Roman law shall be quoted here too, because it\ngives a good idea both of the extent and the limitations of this right.\nIns. 1. 2. t. 1. \u00a7 4. [29]Riparum quoque usus publicus est, ut volunt\njura gentium, sicut et ipsius fluminis usus publicus est. Itaque et\nnavigium ad ripes appellere, et funes de arboribus ibi natis religare,\net navis onera in his locis reponere, liberum quique est sicuti nec per\nflumen ipsum navigare quisquam prohibetur. And again, \u00a75, [30]littorum\nquoque usus publicus, sive juri gentium est, ut et ipsius maris et\nob id data est facultas volentibus, casas ibi sibi componere, in quas\nse recipere possint, &c. Again, \u00a7 1. [31]Nemo igitur ad littora maris\naccedere prohibitur; veluti deambulare aut navem appellere, sic tamen ut\na villis, id est domiciliis monumentisque ibi positis, et ab edificiis\nabstineat, nec iis damnum inferat.\n\nAmong incidental rights are those of having pilots, buoys, beacons,\nlandmarks, light-houses, &c., to guide the navigators. The establishment\nof these at joint expense, and under joint regulations, may be the\nsubject of a future convention. In the meantime, both should be free to\nhave their own, and refuse those of the other, both as to use and expense.\n\nVery peculiar circumstances attending the river Mississippi, require\nthat the incidental right of accommodation on the shore, which needs only\noccasional exercise on other rivers, should be habitual and constant on\nthis. Sea vessels cannot navigate that river, nor the river vessels go\nto sea. The navigation would be useless then without an entrep\u00f4t where\nthese vessels might safely deposit their own cargoes, and take those\nleft by the others; and where warehouses and keepers might be constantly\nestablished for the safeguard of the cargoes. It is admitted, indeed, that\nthe incidental right thus extended into the territory of the bordering\ninhabitants, is liable to stricter modifications in proportion as it\ninterferes with their territorial right. But the inconveniences of both\nparties are still to have their weight, and reason and moderation on\nboth sides are to draw the line between them. As to this, we count much\non the liberality of Spain, on her concurrence in opinion with us, that\nit is for the interest of both parties to remove completely this germ of\ndiscord from between us, and draw our friendship as close as circumstances\nproclaim that it should be, and on the considerations which make it\npalpable that a convenient spot placed under our exclusive occupation,\nand exempted from the jurisdiction and police of their government, is\nfar more likely to preserve peace than a mere free port, where eternal\naltercations would keep us in eternal ill humor with each other. The\npolicy of this measure, and indeed of a much larger concession, having\nbeen formerly sketched in a paper of July 12th, 1790, sent to the\ncommissioners severally, they are now referred to that.\n\nIf this be agreed to, the manner of fixing on that extra territorial\nspot becomes highly interesting. The most desirable to us, would be a\npermission to send commissioners to choose such spot, below the town of\nNew Orleans, as they should find most convenient.\n\nIf this be refused, it would be better now to fix on the spot. Our\ninformation is, that the whole country below the town, and for sixty\nmiles above it, on the western shore, is low, marshy, and subject to\nsuch deep inundation for many miles from the river, that if capable\nof being reclaimed at all by banking, it would still never afford an\nentrep\u00f4t sufficiently safe; that on the eastern side the only lands below\nthe town, not subject to inundation, are at the Detour aux Anglais, or\nEnglish Turn, the highest part of which, is that whereon the fort St.\nMarie formerly stood. Even this is said to have been raised by art, and\nto be very little above the level of the inundations. This spot then\nis what we would fix on, if obliged now to decide, with from one to\nas many square miles of the circumjacent lands as can be obtained, and\ncomprehending expressly the shores above and below the site of the fort as\nfar as possible. But as to the spot itself, the limits, and even whether\nit shall be extra territorial, or only a free port, and what regulations\nit shall be laid under, the convenience of that Government is entitled\nto so much respect and attention on our part, that the arrangement must\nbe left to the management of the commissioners, who will doubtless use\ntheir best efforts to obtain all they can for us.\n\nThe worst footing on which the determination of the ground could be\nplaced, would be a reference to joint commissioners; because their\ndisagreement, a very probable, nay, a certain event, would undo the\nwhole convention, and leave us exactly where we now are. Unless indeed\nthey will engage to us, in case of such disagreement, the highest ground\nat the Detour aux Anglais, of convenient extent, including the landings\nand harbor thereto adjacent. This would ensure us that ground, unless\nbetter could be found and mutually preferred, and close the delay of\nright under which we have so long labored for peace-sake.\n\nIt will probably be urged, because it was urged on a former occasion,\nthat, if Spain _grants_ to us the right of navigating the Mississippi,\nother nations will become entitled to it by virtue of treaties giving\nthem the rights of the _most favored nation_.\n\nTwo answers may be given to this:\n\n1. When those treaties were made, no nations could be under contemplation\nbut those then existing, or those at most who might exist under\nsimilar circumstances. America did not then exist as a nation; and the\ncircumstances of her position and commerce, are so totally dissimilar to\neverything then known, that the treaties of that day were not adapted\nto any such being. They would better fit even China than America;\nbecause, as a manufacturing nation, China resembles Europe more. When\nwe solicited France to admit our whale oils into her ports, though she\nhad excluded all foreign whale oils, her minister made the objection\nnow under consideration, and the foregoing answer was given. It was\nfound to be solid; and the whale oils of the United States are in\nconsequence admitted, though those of Portugal and the Hanse towns, and\nof all other nations, are excluded. Again, when France and England were\nnegotiating their late treaty of commerce, the great dissimilitude of\nour commerce (which furnishes raw materials to employ the industry of\nothers, in exchange for articles whereon industry has been exhausted)\nfrom the commerce of the European nations (which furnishes things ready\nwrought only) was suggested to the attention of both negotiators, and\nthat they should keep their nations free to make particular arrangements\nwith ours, by communicating to each other only the rights of the most\nfavored European nation. Each was separately sensible of the importance\nof the distinction; and as soon as it was proposed by the one, it was\nacceded to by the other, and the word _European_ was inserted in their\ntreaty. It may fairly be considered then as the rational and received\ninterpretation of the diplomatic term, \"gentis amicissim\u00e6\"[32] that it\nhas not in view a nation unknown in many cases at the time of using the\nterm, and so dissimilar in all cases as to furnish no ground of just\nreclamation to any nation.\n\nBut the decisive answer is, that Spain does not grant us the navigation\nof the river. We have an inherent right to it; and she may repel the\ndemand of any other nation by candidly stating her act to have been,\nwhat in truth it is, a recognition only, and not a grant.\n\nIf Spain apprehends that other nations may claim access to our ports in\nthe Mississippi, under their treaties with us, giving them a right to\ncome and trade in all our ports, though we would not choose to insert an\nexpress stipulation against them, yet we shall think ourselves justified\nto acquiesce in fact, under any regulations Spain may from time to time\nestablish against their admission.\n\nShould Spain renew another objection, which she relied much on before\nthat the English at the Revolution treaty could not cede to us what\nSpain had taken from them by conquest, and what of course they did not\npossess themselves, the preceding observations furnish sufficient matter\nfor refutation.\n\nTo conclude the subjects of boundary and navigation, each of the following\nconditions is to be considered by the commissioners as a _sine qu\u00e2 non_.\n\n1. That our southern boundary remain established at the completion of\nthirty-one degrees of latitude on the Mississippi, and so on to the\nocean, as has been before described, and our western one along the middle\nof the channel of the Mississippi, however that channel may vary, as\nit is constantly varying, and that Spain cease to occupy or to exercise\njurisdiction in any part northward or eastward of these boundaries.\n\n2. That our right be acknowledged of navigating the Mississippi, in its\nwhole breadth and length, from its source to the sea, as established by\nthe treaty of 1763.\n\n3. That neither the vessels, cargoes, or the persons on board, be stopped,\nvisited, or subjected to the payment of any duty whatsoever; or, if a\nvisit must be permitted, that it be under such restrictions as to produce\nthe least possible inconvenience. But it should be altogether avoided,\nif possible, as the parent of perpetual broils.\n\n4. That such conveniences be allowed us ashore, as may render our right\nof navigation practicable and under such regulations as may _bon\u00e2 fide_\nrespect the preservation of peace and order alone, and may not have in\nobject to embarrass our navigation, or raise a revenue on it. While the\nsubstance of this article is made a _sine qu\u00e2 non_, the modifications\nof it are left altogether to the discretion and management of the\ncommissioners.\n\nWe might add, as a fifth _sine qu\u00e2 non_, that no phrase should be admitted\nin the treaty which could express or imply that we take the navigation\nof the Mississippi as a _grant_ from Spain. But, however disagreeable it\nwould be to subscribe to such a sentiment, yet, were the conclusion of a\ntreaty to hang on that single objection, it would be expedient to waive\nit, and to meet, at a future day, the consequences of any resumption\nthey may pretend to make, rather than at present, those of a separation\nwithout coming to any agreement.\n\nWe know not whether Spain has it in idea to ask a compensation for the\nascertainment of our right.\n\n1. In the first place, she cannot in reason ask a compensation for\nyielding what we have a right to, that is to say, the navigation of the\nriver, and the conveniences incident to it of natural right.\n\n2. In the second place, we have a claim on Spain for indemnification\nfor nine years' exclusion from that navigation, and a reimbursement\nof the heavy duties (not less for the most part than 15 per cent. on\nextravagant valuations) levied on the commodities she has permitted\nto pass to New Orleans. The relinquishment of this will be no unworthy\nequivalent for any accommodations she may indulge us with, beyond the\nline of our strict right. And this claim is to be brought into view\nin proper time and manner, merely to be abandoned in consideration of\nsuch accommodations. We have nothing else to give in exchange. For as\nto territory, we have neither the right nor the disposition to alienate\nan inch of what belongs to any member of our Union. Such a proposition,\ntherefore, is totally inadmissible, and not to be treated of for a moment.\n\n3. On the former conferences on the navigation of the Mississippi,\nSpain chose to blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingly,\nspecific propositions thereon passed between the negotiators. Her object,\nthen, was to obtain our renunciation of the navigation, and to hold out\ncommercial arrangements, perhaps as a lure to us; perhaps, however, she\nmight then, and may now, really set a value on commercial arrangements\nwith us, and may receive them as a consideration for accommodating us in\nthe navigation; or, may wish for them, to have the appearance of receiving\na consideration. Commercial arrangements, if acceptable in themselves,\nwill not be the less so if coupled with those relating to navigation and\nboundary. We have only to take care that they be acceptable in themselves.\n\nThere are two principles which may be proposed as the basis of a\ncommercial treaty: 1. That of exchanging the privileges of _native\ncitizens_; or,\n\n2. Those of _the most favored nation_.\n\n1. With the nations holding important possessions in America, we are ready\nto exchange the rights of native citizens, provided they be extended\nthrough the whole possessions of both parties, but the propositions of\nSpain, made on the former occasion, (a copy of which accompanies this,)\nwere, that we should give their merchants, vessels, and productions,\nthe privilege of native merchants, vessels, and productions, through\nthe whole of our possessions, and they give the same to ours only in\nSpain and the Canaries. This is inadmissible, because unequal; and, as\nwe believe that Spain is not ripe for an equal exchange on this basis,\nwe avoid proposing it.\n\n2. Though treaties, which merely exchange the rights of the most\nfavored nations, are not without all inconvenience, yet they have\ntheir conveniences also. It is an important one, that they leave each\nparty free to make what internal regulations they please, and to give\nwhat preferences they find expedient to native merchants, vessels, and\nproductions. And as we already have treaties on this basis, with France,\nHolland, Sweden, and Prussia, the two former of which are perpetual, it\nwill be but small additional embarrassment to extend it to Spain. On the\ncontrary, we are sensible it is right to place that nation on the most\nfavored footing, whether we have a treaty with them or not, and it can\ndo us no harm to secure by treaty a reciprocation of the right.\n\nOf the four treaties before mentioned, either the French or the Prussian\nmight be taken as a model. But it would be useless to propose the\nPrussian; because we have already supposed that Spain would never consent\nto those articles which give to each party access to all the dominions\nof the other; and, without this equivalent, we would not agree to tie\nour own hands so materially in war, as would be done by the 23d article,\nwhich renounces the right of fitting out privateers, or of capturing\nmerchant vessels. The French treaty, therefore, is proposed as the model.\nIn this, however, the following changes are to be made.\n\nWe should be admitted to all the dominions of Spain, to which any other\nforeign nation is, or may be admitted.\n\nArticle 5 being an exemption from a particular duty in France, will of\ncourse be omitted, as inapplicable to Spain.\n\nArticle 8 to be omitted, as unnecessary with Morocco, and inefficacious,\nand little honorable with any of the Barbary powers. But it may furnish\noccasion to sound Spain on the project of a convention of the powers\nat war with the Barbary States, to keep up, by rotation, a constant\ncruise of a given force on their coasts, till they shall be compelled\nto renounce forever, and against all nations, their predatory practices.\nPerhaps the infidelities of the Algerines to their treaty of peace with\nSpain, though the latter does not choose to break openly, may induce\nher to subsidize _us_ to cruise against them with a given force.\n\nArticle 9 and 10, concerning fisheries, to be omitted, as inapplicable.\n\nArticle 11. The first paragraph of this article, respecting the _droit\nd'aubaine_, to be omitted; that law being supposed peculiar to France.\n\nArticle 17, giving asylum in the ports of either to the armed vessels\nof the other, with the prizes taken from the enemies of that other,\nmust be qualified as it is in the 19th article of the Prussian treaty;\nas the stipulation in the latter part of the article, \"that no shelter\nor refuge shall be given in the ports of the one to such as shall have\nmade prize on the subjects of the other of the parties,\" would forbid us\nin case of a war between France and Spain, to give shelter in our ports\nto prizes made by the latter on the former, while the first part of\nthe article would oblige us to shelter those made by the former on the\nlatter--a very dangerous covenant, and which ought never to be repeated\nin any other instance.\n\nArticle 29. Consuls should be received in all the ports at which the\nvessels of either party may be received.\n\nArticle 30, concerning free ports in Europe and America. Free ports in\nthe Spanish possessions in America, and particularly at the Havana, San\nDomingo, in the island of that name, and St. John of Porto Rico, are\nmore to be desired than expected. It can, therefore, only be recommended\nto the best endeavors of the commissioners to obtain them. It will be\nsomething to obtain for our vessels, flour, &c., admission to those ports\nduring their pleasure. In like manner, if they could be prevailed on\nto re-establish our right of cutting log-wood in the bay of Campeachy,\non the footing on which it stood before the treaty of 1763, it would be\ndesirable, and not endanger, to us, any contest with the English, who,\nby the Revolution treaty, are restrained to the south-eastern parts of\nYucatan.\n\nArticle 31. The _act_ of ratification, on our part, may require a\ntwelvemonth from the date of the treaty, as the Senate meets regularly\nbut once a year; and to return it to Madrid, for exchange, may require\nfour months more. It would be better, indeed, if Spain would send her\nratification to be exchanged by her representative here.\n\nThe treaty must not exceed twelve or fifteen years' duration, except\nthe clauses relating to boundary, and the navigation of the Mississippi,\nwhich must be perpetual and final. Indeed, these two subjects had better\nbe in a separate instrument.\n\nThere might have been mentioned a third species of arrangement, that\nof making special agreements on every special subject of commerce,\nand of setting a tariff of duty to be paid on each side, on every\nparticular article; but this would require in our commissioners a very\nminute knowledge of our commerce, as it is impossible to foresee every\nproposition of this kind which might be brought into discussion, and\nto prepare them for it by information and instruction from hence. Our\ncommerce, too, is, as yet, rather in a course of experiment, and the\nchannels in which it will ultimately flow, are not sufficiently known to\nenable us to provide for it by special agreement. Nor have the exigencies\nof our new government, as yet, so far developed themselves, as that we\ncan know to what degree we may or must have recourse to commerce for\nthe purposes of revenue. No common consideration, therefore, ought to\ninduce us, as yet, to arrangements of this kind. Perhaps nothing should\ndo it with any nation, short of the privileges of natives in all their\npossessions, foreign and domestic.\n\nIt were to be wished, indeed, that some positively favorable stipulations\nrespecting our grain, flour, and fish, could be obtained, even on our\ngiving reciprocal advantages to some other commodities of Spain, say\nher wines and brandies.\n\nBut, 1st. If we quit the ground of the _most favored nation_, as to\ncertain articles for our convenience, Spain may insist on doing the same\nfor other articles for her convenience, and thus our commissioners will\nget themselves on the ground of a treaty of _detail_, for which they\nwill not be prepared.\n\n2d. If we grant favor to the wines and brandies of Spain, then Portugal\nand Spain will demand the same; and in order to create an equivalent,\nPortugal may lay a duty on our fish and grain, and France, a prohibition\non our whale oils, the removal of which will be proposed as an equivalent.\n\nThis much, however, as to grain and flour, may be attempted. There has,\nnot long since, been a considerable duty laid on them in Spain. This\nwas while a treaty on the subject of commerce was pending between us and\nSpain, as that court considers the matter. It is not generally thought\nright to change the state of things pending a treaty concerning them.\nOn this consideration, and on the motive of cultivating our friendship,\nperhaps the commissioners may induce them to restore this commodity\nto the footing on which it was, on opening the conferences with Mr.\nGardoqui, on the 26th day of July, 1785. If Spain says, \"do the same by\nyour tonnage on our vessels,\" the answer may be, that our foreign tonnage\naffects Spain very little, and other nations very much; whereas the duty\non flour in Spain affects us very much, and other nations very little.\nConsequently, there would be no equality in reciprocal relinquishment,\nas there had been none in the reciprocal innovation; and Spain, by\ninsisting on this, would, in fact, only be aiding the interests of her\nrival nations, to whom we should be forced to extend the same indulgence.\nAt the time of opening the conferences, too, we had, as yet, not erected\nany system; our government itself being not yet erected. Innovation then\nwas unavoidable on our part, if it be innovation to establish a system.\nWe did it on fair and general ground; on ground favorable to Spain. But\nthey had a system, and, therefore, innovation was avoidable on their part.\n\nIt is known to the commissioners that we found it expedient to ask\nthe interposition of France, lately, to bring on this settlement of\nour boundary, and the navigation of the Mississippi. How far that\ninterposition has contributed to produce it, is uncertain. But we have\nreason to believe that her further interference would not produce an\nagreeable effect on Spain. The commissioners, therefore, are to avoid\nall further communications on the subject with the ministers of France,\ngiving them such explanations as may preserve their good dispositions.\nBut if, ultimately, they shall find themselves unable to bring Spain to\nagreement on the subject of the navigation and boundary, the interposition\nof France, as a mutual friend, and the guarantee of our limits, is then\nto be asked, in whatever light Spain may choose to consider it.\n\nShould the negotiations on the subject of navigation and boundary\nassume, at any time, an unhopeful aspect, it may be proper that Spain\nshould be given to understand, that, if they are discontinued without\ncoming to any agreement, the Government of the United States cannot be\nresponsible for the longer forbearance of their western inhabitants. At\nthe same time the abandonment of the negotiation should be so managed\nas that, without engaging us to a further suspension of the exercise of\nour rights, we may not be committed to resume them on the instant. The\npresent turbid situation of Europe cannot leave us long without a safe\noccasion of resuming our territory and navigation, and of carving for\nourselves those conveniences, on the shores, which may facilitate and\nprotect the latter effectually and permanently.\n\nWe had a right to expect that, pending a negotiation, all things would\nhave remained in _statu quo_, and that Spain would not have proceeded\nto possess herself of other parts of our territory. But she has lately\ntaken and fortified a new post on the Walnut hills, above the mouth\nof the Yazoo river, and far above the 31st degree. This garrison ought\nto have been instantly dislodged; but for our wish to be in friendship\nwith Spain, and our confidence in her assurances \"to bide by the limits\nestablished in our treaty with England,\" complaints of this unfriendly\nand uncandid procedure may be brought forward or not, as the commissioners\nshall see expedient.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [27] Mr. Short is desired to purchase this book at\n Amsterdam, or Paris, as he may not find it at Madrid, and\n when it shall have answered the purposes of this mission,\n let it be sent here for the use of the Secretary of State's\n office.\n\n [28] Rivers belong to the public, that is to say to the\n Roman people.\n\n [29] \"The use of the banks belong also to the public by\n the laws of nations, as the use of the river itself does.\n Therefore, every one is free to moor his vessel to the\n bank, to fasten his cables to the trees growing on it, to\n deposit the cargo of his vessel in those places in like\n manner as every one is free to navigate the river itself.\"\n\n [30] \"The use of the shores also belongs to the public, or\n is under the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself.\n Therefore it is, that those who choose, have a right to\n build huts there, into which they may betake themselves.\"\n\n [31] \"Nobody, therefore, is prohibited from landing on the\n sea shore, walking there, or mooring their vessel there,\n so nevertheless that they keep out of the villas, that is,\n the habitations, monuments, and public buildings, erected\n there, and do them no injury.\"\n\n [32] \"The most favored nation.\"\n\n\nXXVII.--_Report on the case of Charles Russell and others, claiming\ncertain lands._\n\n January 21, 1792.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the President of the\nUnited States, the letter of the Governor of Virginia of January 7th,\n1792, with the report of a committee of the House of Delegates of that\ncommonwealth, of December 12th, 1791, and resolution of the General\nAssembly thereon, of December 17th, on the case of Charles Russell,\nlate an officer in the service of the said commonwealth, stating that a\nconsiderable part of the tract of country allotted for the officers and\nsoldiers having fallen into the State of North Carolina on the extension\nof their common boundary, the legislature of the said State had, in\n1781, passed an act substituting in lieu thereof the tract of country\nbetween the said boundary and the rivers Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee,\nand subjecting the same to the claims of their officers and soldiers.\nThat the said Charles Russell had in consequence thereof, directed\nwarrants for two thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds acres\nof land to be located within the said tract of country; but that the\nsame belonging to the Chickasaws, he is unable to obtain a right thereto,\nand that there are other officers and soldiers of the said commonwealth\nunder like circumstances:\n\nReports, That the tract of country before described, is within the\nboundaries of the Chickasaw nation as established by the treaty of\nHopewell, the 16th day of January 1786.\n\nThat the right of occupancy of the said lands, therefore, being vested\nin the said nation, the case of the said Charles Russell, and other\nofficers and soldiers of the said commonwealth, becomes proper to be\nreferred to the legislature of the United States for their consideration.\n\n\nXXVIII.--_Report relative to negotiations at Madrid._\n\n March 7, 1792.\n\nThe Secretary of State having understood, from communications with\nthe commissioners of his Catholic Majesty, subsequent to that which\nhe reported to the President on the 22d of December last, that though\nthey considered the navigation of the Mississippi as the principal\nobject of negotiation between the two countries, yet it was expected by\ntheir court that the conferences would extend to all the matters which\nwere under negotiation on the former occasion with Mr. Gardoqui, and\nparticularly to some arrangements of commerce, is of opinion, that,\nto renew the conferences on this subject also, since they desire it,\nwill be but friendly and respectful, and can lead to nothing without\nour own consent; and that, to refuse it, might obstruct the settlement\nof the questions of navigation and boundary; and, therefore, reports\nto the President of the United States, the following observations and\ninstructions to the commissioners of the United States, appointed to\nnegotiate with the court of Spain a treaty or convention relative to the\nnavigation of the Mississippi; which observations and instructions, he\nis of opinion, should be laid before the Senate of the United States,\nand their decision be desired, whether they will advise and consent that\na treaty be entered into by the commissioners of the United States with\nSpain conformable thereto.\n\nAfter stating to our commissioners the foundation of our rights to\nnavigate the Mississippi, and to hold our southern boundary at the 31st\ndegree of latitude, and that each of these is to be a _sine qu\u00e2 non_,\nit is proposed to add as follows:\n\nOn the former conferences on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain\nchose to blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingly,\nspecific propositions thereon passed between the negotiators. Her object\nthen was to obtain our renunciation of the navigation, and to hold out\ncommercial arrangements perhaps as a lure to us. Perhaps, however, she\nmight then, and may now, really set a value on commercial arrangements\nwith us, and may receive them as a consideration for accommodating us in\nthe navigation, or may wish for them to have the appearance of receiving\na consideration. Commercial arrangements, if acceptable in themselves,\nwill not be the less so, if coupled with those relating to navigation and\nboundary. We have only to take care that they be acceptable in themselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nXXIX.--_Opinion on the Bill apportioning Representation._\n\n April 4, 1792.\n\nThe Constitution has declared that representatives and direct taxes shall\nbe apportioned among the several States according to their respective\nnumbers. That the number of representatives shall not exceed one for\nevery 30,000, but each State shall have at least one representative, and\nuntil such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall\nbe entitled to choose 3, Massachusetts 2.\n\nThe bill for apportioning representatives among the several States,\nwithout explaining any principle at all, which may show its conformity\nwith the constitution, to guide future apportionments, says, that New\nHampshire shall have 3 members, Massachusetts 16, &c. We are, therefore,\nto find by experiment what has been the principle of the bill; to do\nwhich, it is proper to state the federal or representable numbers of\neach State, and the numbers allotted to them by the bill. They are as\nfollows:--\n\n Members.\n\n Vermont 85,532 3\n New Hampshire 141,823 5\n Massachusetts 475,327 16\n Rhode Island 68,444 2\n Connecticut 285,941 8\n New York 352,915 11\n New Jersey 179,556 6\n Pennsylvania 432,880 14\n Delaware 55,538 2\n Maryland 278,513 9\n Virginia 630,558 21\n Kentucky 68,705 2\n North Carolina 353,521 11\n South Carolina 206,236 6\n Georgia 70,843 2\n --------- ---\n 3,636,312 120\n\nIt happens that this representation, whether tried as between great and\nsmall States, or as between north and south, yields, in the present\ninstance, a tolerably just result; and, consequently, could not be\nobjected to on that ground, if it were obtained by the process prescribed\nin the Constitution; but if obtained by any process out of that, it\nbecomes arbitrary and inadmissible.\n\nThe 1st member of the clause of the Constitution above cited is express,\nthat representatives shall be apportioned among the several States\naccording to their _respective numbers_. That is to say, they shall\nbe apportioned by some common ratio--for proportion, and ratio, are\nequivalent words; and, in the definition of _proportion among numbers_,\nthat they have a ratio common to all, or in other words, a common divisor.\nNow, trial will show that there is no common ratio, or divisor, which,\napplied to the numbers of each State, will give to them the number of\nrepresentatives allotted in this bill. For trying the several ratios of\n29, 30, 31, 32, 33, the allotments would be as follows:--\n\n 29 30 31 32 33 The Bill\n -- -- -- -- -- --------\n Vermont 2 2 2 2 2 3\n New Hampshire 4 4 4 4 4 5\n Massachusetts 16 15 15 14 14 16\n Rhode Island 2 2 2 2 2 2\n Connecticut 8 7 7 7 7 8\n New York 12 11 11 11 10 11\n New Jersey 6 5 5 5 5 6\n Pennsylvania 14 14 13 13 13 14\n Delaware 1 1 1 1 1 2\n Maryland 9 9 8 8 8 9\n Virginia 21 21 20 19 19 21\n Kentucky 2 2 2 2 2 2\n North Carolina 12 11 11 11 10 12\n South Carolina 7 6 6 6 6 7\n Georgia 2 2 2 2 2 2\n --- --- --- --- --- ---\n 118 112 109 107 105 120\n\nThen the bill reverses the constitutional precept, because, by it,\nrepresentatives are _not_ apportioned among the several States, according\nto their respective numbers.\n\nIt will be said that, though, for taxes, there may always be found a\ndivisor which will apportion them among the States according to numbers\nexactly, without leaving any remainder, yet, for _representatives_, there\ncan be no such common ratio, or divisor, which, applied to the several\nnumbers, will divide them exactly, without a remainder or fraction. I\nanswer, then, that taxes must be divided _exactly_, and representatives\n_as nearly_ as the _nearest ratio_ will admit; and the fractions must\nbe neglected, because the Constitution calls absolutely that there be\nan _apportionment or common ratio_, and if any fractions result from\nthe operation, it has left them unprovided for. In fact it could not\nbut foresee that such fractions would result, and it meant to submit\nto them. It knew they would be in favor of one part of the Union at one\ntime, and of another at another, so as, in the end, to balance occasional\nirregularities. But instead of such a _single_ common ratio, or uniform\ndivisor, as prescribed by the Constitution, the bill has applied _two\nratios_, at least, to the different States, to wit, that of 30,026 to\nthe seven following: Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland,\nVirginia, Kentucky and Georgia; and that of 27,770 to the eight others,\nnamely: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey,\nDelaware, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as follows:--\n\n Rhode Island 68,444 divided by 30,026 gives 2\n New York 352,915 \" \" \" 11\n Pennsylvania 432,880 \" \" \" 14\n Maryland 278,513 \" \" \" 9\n Virginia 630,558 \" \" \" 21\n Kentucky 58,705 \" \" \" 2\n Georgia 70,843 \" \" \" 2\n\n Vermont 85,532 divided by 27,770 gives 3\n New Hampshire 141,823 \" \" \" 5\n Massachusetts 475,327 \" \" \" 16\n Connecticut 235,941 \" \" \" 8\n New Jersey 179,556 \" \" \" 6\n Delaware 55,538 \" \" \" 2\n North Carolina 353,521 \" \" \" 12\n South Carolina 206,236 \" \" \" 7\n\nAnd if _two_ ratios be applied, then _fifteen_ may, and the distribution\nbecome arbitrary, instead of being apportioned to numbers. Another member\nof the clause of the Constitution which has been cited, says \"the number\nof representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each State\nshall have at least one representative.\" This last phrase proves that\nit had no contemplation that all fractions, or _numbers below the common\nratio_ were to be unrepresented; and it provides especially that in the\ncase of a State whose whole number shall be below the common ratio, one\nrepresentative shall be given to it. This is the single instance where\nit allows representation to any smaller number than the common ratio,\nand by providing especially for it in this, shews it was understood\nthat, without special provision, the smaller number would in this case,\nbe involved in the general principle. The first phrase of the above\ncitations, that \"the number of representatives shall not exceed one for\nevery 30,000,\" is violated by this bill which has given to eight States\na number exceeding one for every 30,000, to wit, one for every 27,770.\n\nIn answer to this, it is said that this phrase may mean either the 30,000\n_in each State_, or the 30,000 _in the whole Union_, and that in the\nlatter case it serves only to find the amount of the whole representation;\nwhich, in the present state of population, is 120 members. Suppose the\nphrase might bear both meanings, which will common sense apply to it?\nWhich did the universal understanding of our country apply to it? Which\ndid the Senate and Representatives apply to it during the pendency of the\nfirst bill, and even till an advanced stage of this second bill, when\nan ingenious gentleman found out the doctrine of fractions, a doctrine\nso difficult and inobvious, as to be rejected at first sight by the very\npersons who afterwards became its most zealous advocates?\n\nThe phrase stands in the midst of a number of others, every one of which\nrelates to States in their separate capacity. Will not plain common sense\nthen, understand it, like the rest of its context, to relate to States\nin their separate capacities?\n\nBut if the phrase of one for 30,000 is only meant to give the aggregate\nof representatives, and not at all to influence their apportionment\namong the States, then the 120 being once found, in order to apportion\nthem, we must recur to the former rule which does it according to the\nnumbers of _the respective States_; and we must take the _nearest common\ndivisor_, as the ratio of distribution, that is to say, that divisor\nwhich, applied to every State, gives to them such numbers as, added\ntogether, come nearest to 120. This nearest common ratio will be found\nto be 28,658, and will distribute 119 of the 120 members, leaving only\na single residuary one. It will be found too to place 96,648 fractional\nnumbers in the eight northernmost States, and 106,582 in the seven\nsouthernmost. The following table shows it:\n\n Ratio, 28,658 Fraction.\n ------\n Vermont 85,832 2 27,816\n New Hampshire 141,823 4 26,391\n Massachusetts 475,327 16 13,599\n Rhode Island 68,444 2 10,728\n Connecticut 235,941 8 5,077\n New York 352,915 12 6,619\n New Jersey 119,856 6 6,408\n Pennsylvania 432,880 15 10 96,648\n\n Delaware 55,538 1 26,680\n Maryland 278,503 9 18,191\n Virginia 630,558 21 24,540\n Kentucky 68,705 2 10,989\n North Carolina 353,521 12 7,225\n South Carolina 206,236 7 4,230\n Virginia 70,843 2 23,137 105,582\n --------- ---- ------- -------\n 3,636,312 119 202,230 202,230\n\nWhatever may have been the intention, the effect of neglecting the\nnearest divisor, (which leaves but one residuary member,) and adopting\na distant one (which leaves eight), is merely to take a member from New\nYork and Pennsylvania, each, and give them to Vermont and New Hampshire.\nBut it will be said, this is giving more than one for 30,000. True, but\nhas it not been just said that the one for 30,000 is prescribed only to\nfix the aggregate number, and that we are not to mind it when we come\nto apportion them among the States? That for this we must recur to the\nformer rule which distributes them according to the numbers in each\nState? Besides does not the bill itself apportion among seven of the\nStates by the ratio of 27,770? which is much more than one for 30,000.\n\nWhere a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to\nadopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences. Let us\nweigh those resulting from both constructions.\n\nFrom that giving to each State a member for every 30,000 in that State\nresults the single inconvenience that there may be large portions\nunrepresented, but it being a mere hazard on which State this will\nfall, hazard will equalize it in the long run. From the others result\nexactly the same inconvenience. A thousand cases may be imagined to\nprove it. Take one. Suppose eight of the States had 45,000 inhabitants\neach, and the other seven 44,999 each, that is to say each one less than\neach of the others. The aggregate would be 674,993, and the number of\nrepresentatives at one for 30,000 of the aggregate, would be 22. Then,\nafter giving one member to each State, distribute the seven residuary\nmembers among the seven highest fractions, and though the difference of\npopulation be only an unit, the representation would be the double.\n\n Fractions.\n\n 1st. 45,000 2 15,000\n 2d. 45,000 2 15,000\n 3d. 45,000 2 15,000\n 4th. 45,000 2 15,000\n 5th. 45,000 2 15,000\n 6th. 45,000 2 15,000\n 7th. 45,000 2 15,000\n 8th. 45,000 1 15,000\n 9th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 10th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 11th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 12th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 13th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 14th. 44,999 1 14,999\n 15th. 14,999\n ------- --\n 674,993 22\n\nHere a single inhabitant the more would count as 30,000. Nor is this case\nimaginable, only it will resemble the real one whenever the fractions\nhappen to be pretty equal through the whole States. The numbers of our\ncensus happen by accident to give the fractions all very small, or very\ngreat, so as to produce the strongest case of inequality that could\npossibly have occurred, and which may never occur again. The probability\nis that the fractions will generally descend gradually from 29,999 to\n1. The inconvenience then of large unrepresented fractions attends both\nconstructions; and while the most obvious construction is liable to no\nother, that of the bill incurs many and grievous ones.\n\n1. If you permit the large fraction in one State to choose a\nrepresentative for one of the small fractions in another State, you take\nfrom the latter its election, which constitutes real representation,\nand substitute a virtual representation of the disfranchised fractions,\nand the tendency of the doctrine of virtual representation has been too\nwell discussed and appreciated by reasoning and resistance on a former\ngreat occasion to need development now.\n\n2. The bill does not say that it has given the residuary representatives\n_to the greatest fraction_; though in fact it has done so. It seems to\nhave avoided establishing that into a rule, lest it might not suit on\nanother occasion. Perhaps it may be found the next time more convenient\nto distribute them _among the smaller States_; at another time _among\nthe larger States_; at other times according to any other crotchet which\ningenuity may invent, and the combinations of the day give strength to\ncarry; or they may do it arbitrarily by open bargains and cabal. In short\nthis construction introduces into Congress a scramble, or a vendue for\nthe surplus members. It generates waste of time, hot blood, and may at\nsome time, when the passions are high, extend a disagreement between\nthe two Houses, to the perpetual loss of the thing, as happens now in\nthe Pennsylvania assembly; whereas the other construction reduces the\napportionment always to an arithmetical operation, about which no two\nmen can ever possibly differ.\n\n3. It leaves in full force the violation of the precept which declares\nthat representatives shall be _apportioned_ among the States according\nto their numbers, _i. e._, by some common ratio.\n\nViewing this bill either as a _violation of the constitution_, or as\ngiving an _inconvenient exposition of its words_, is it a case wherein\nthe President ought to interpose his negative? I think it is.\n\n1. The non-user of his negative begins already to excite a belief that no\nPresident will ever venture to use it; and has, consequently, begotten a\ndesire to raise up barriers in the State legislatures against Congress,\nthrowing off the control of the constitution.\n\n2. It can never be used more pleasingly to the public, than in the\nprotection of the constitution.\n\n3. No invasions of the constitution are fundamentally so dangerous as the\ntricks played on their own numbers, apportionment, and other circumstances\nrespecting themselves, and affecting their legal qualifications to\nlegislate for the union.\n\n4. The majorities by which this bill has been carried (to wit: of one in\nthe Senate and two in the Representatives) show how divided the opinions\nwere there.\n\n5. The whole of both houses admit the constitution will bear the other\nexposition, whereas the minorities in both deny it will bear that of\nthe bill.\n\n6. The application of any one ratio is intelligible to the people, and\nwill, therefore be approved, whereas the complex operations of this bill\nwill never be comprehended by them, and though they may acquiesce, they\ncannot approve what they do not understand.\n\n\nXXX.--_Opinion relative to a case of recapture, by citizens of the\nUnited States, of slaves escaped into Florida, and of an American captain\nenticing French slaves from St. Domingo._\n\n December 3, 1792.\n\nComplaint has been made by the Representatives of Spain that certain\nindividuals of Georgia entered the State of Florida, and without any\napplication to the Government, seized and carried into Georgia, certain\npersons, whom they claimed to be their slaves. This aggression was thought\nthe more of, as there exists a convention between that government and\nthe United States against receiving fugitive slaves.\n\nThe minister of France has complained that the master of an American\nvessel, while lying within a harbor of St. Domingo, having enticed some\nnegroes on board his vessel, under pretext of employment, bought them\noff, and sold them in Georgia as slaves.\n\n1. Has the general government cognizance of these offences? 2. If it\nhas, is any law already provided for trying and punishing them?\n\n1. The Constitution says \"Congress shall have power to lay and collect\ntaxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts &c., provide for\nthe common defence and _general welfare_ of the United States.\" I do\nnot consider this clause as reaching the point. I suppose its meaning\nto be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for\nthe _general welfare_, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers\nthem to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give\nthem a distinct substantive power, to do _any act_ which might tend to\nthe _general welfare_, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to\nmake their powers unlimited. We must seek the power therefore in some\nother clause of the Constitution. It says further, that Congress shall\nhave power to \"define and punish piracies and felonies committed on\nthe high seas, and offences against the law of nations.\" These offences\nwere not committed on the high seas, and consequently not within that\nbranch of the clause. Are they against the law of nations, taken as it\nmay be in its whole extent, as founded, 1st, in nature; 2d, usage; 3d,\nconvention? So much may be said in the affirmative, that the legislators\nought to send the case before the judiciary for discussion; and the\nrather, when it is considered that unless the offenders can be punished\nunder this clause, there is no other which goes directly to their case,\nand consequently our peace with foreign nations will be constantly at\nthe discretion of individuals.\n\n2. Have the legislators sent this question before the Courts by any\nlaw already provided? The act of 1789, chapter 20, section 9, says the\ndistrict courts shall have cognizance concurrent with the courts of the\nseveral States, or the circuit courts, of all causes, where an _alien\nsues for a tort only_, in violation of the law of nations: but what if\nthere be no alien whose interest is such as to support an action for\nthe tort?--which is precisely the case of the aggression on Florida. If\nthe act in describing the jurisdiction of the Courts, had given them\ncognizance of proceedings by way of indictment or information against\noffenders under the law of nations, for the public wrong, and on the\npublic behalf, as well as to an individual for the special tort, it\nwould have been the thing desired.\n\nThe same act, section 13, says, the \"Supreme Court shall have exclusively\nall such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors,\nor other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants,\nas a court of law can have or exercise consistently, with the law of\nnations.\"--Still this is not the case, no ambassador, &c., being concerned\nhere. I find nothing else in the law applicable to this question, and\ntherefore presume the case is still to be provided for, and that this\nmay be done by enlarging the jurisdiction of the courts, so that they may\nsustain indictments and informations on the public behalf, for offences\nagainst the law of nations.\n\n[_A note added by Mr. Jefferson at a later period._]\n\nOn further examination it does appear that the 11th section of the\njudiciary act above cited gives to the circuit courts exclusively,\ncognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority\nof the United States, and not otherwise provided for. This removes the\ndifficulty, however, but one step further;--for questions then arise,\n1st. What is the peculiar character of the offence in question; to wit,\ntreason, felony, misdemeanor, or trespass? 2d. What is its specific\npunishment--capital or what? 3d. Whence is the venue to come?\n\n\nXXXI.--_Report on Assays at the Mint, communicated to the House of\nRepresentatives, January 8, 1793._\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the President of the\nUnited States, the resolution of the House of Representatives of the\n29th of November, 1792, on the subject of experiments of France, England,\nSpain, and Portugal, reports:\n\nThat assays and experiments have been, accordingly, made at the mint,\nby the director, and under his care and inspection, of sundry gold and\nsilver coins of France, England, Spain, and Portugal, and of the quantity\nof fine gold and alloy in each of them, and the specific gravities of\nthose of gold given in by the director, a copy of which, and of the\nletter covering it, are contained in the papers marked A and B.\n\n\nA.\n\n January 7, 1793.\n\nSIR:--I have, herewith, enclosed the result of our assays, &c., of\nthe coins of France, England, Spain, and Portugal. In the course of the\nexperiments, a very small source of error was detected, too late for the\npresent occasion, but which will be carefully guarded against in future.\n\nI am, with the most perfect esteem, your most obedient humble servant,\n\n DAVID RITTENHOUSE, _Director of the Mint_.\n\nTHOMAS JEFFERSON, _Secretary of State_.\n\n\n_B._\n\n_Assay of gold coins._\n\n =======================+==============================+==========\n | In 24 grains. |\n Date +--------------+---------------+ Specific\n | Fine gold. | Alloy. | gravity.\n -----------------------+--------------+---------------+----------\n | grs. 32 pts.| grs. 32 pts.|\n {1726| 21 16 | 2 16 | 17.48\n {1734| 21 19 | 2 13 | 17.38\n French guineas, {1742| 21 26 | 2 06 | 17.58\n {1753| 21 03 | 2 29 | 17.23\n {1775| 21 22 | 2 10 | 17.57\n {1786| 21 22 | 2 10 | 17.51\n\n Double do. {1789| 21 22 | 2 10 | 17.50\n {1790| 21 25 | 2 07 | 17.57\n {1776| 21 21 | 2 11 | 17.53\n {1780| 21 00 | 3 00 | 17.57\n\n Spanish pistoles, {1786| 21 18 | 2 14 | 17.63\n {1788| 21 02 | 2 30 | 17.00\n\n {1755| 21 28 | 2 04 | 17.78\n {1777| 21 31 | 2 01 | 17.75\n {1785| 21 30 | 2 02 | 17.78\n English guineas, {1788| 21 31 | 2 01 | 17.79\n {1789| 22 03 | 1 29 | 17.78\n {1791| 22 01 | 1 31 | 17.74\n -----------------------+--------------+---------------+---------\n {1739| 21 31 | 2 01 | 17.63\n {1770| 22 05 | 1 27 | 17.78\n Half johannes of {1776| 22 05 | 1 27 | 17.87\n Portugal, {1785| 21 30 | 2 02 | 17.68\n {1788| 21 31 | 2 01 | 17.78\n =======================+==============+===============+=========\n\n_Silver coins._\n\n =================================+=================================\n | In 12 ounces.\n Date. +----------------+----------------\n | Fine silver. | Alloy.\n ---------------------------------+----------------+----------------\n | oz. dwts. grs. | oz. dwts. grs.\n English half-crown of William | |\n III. | 10 19 09\u00bd | 1 00 14\u00bd\n English shilling, 1787| 11 00 02\u00bd | 0 19 21\u00bd\n French crown, 1791| 10 16 00 | 1 04 00\n Do. half-crown, 1739| 10 17 00 | 1 03 00\n Do. 1792| 10 16 19 | 1 03 05\n { 1772| 10 15 05 | 1 04 19\n Spanish dollar of { 1782| 10 14 02\u00bd | 1 05 21\u00bd\n { 1790| 10 14 00 | 1 06 00\n { 1791| 10 14 21\u00bd | 1 05 02\u00bd\n =================================+================+================\n\n MINT, January 7, 1793.\n\nAssayed by Mr. David Ott, under my inspection, at the mint, in pursuance\nof a resolution of Congress of November 29, 1792. I have added the\nspecific gravity of each piece of gold coin.\n\n DAVID RITTENHOUSE, _Director of the Mint_.\n\n\nXXXII.----_Report on the petition of John Rogers, relative to certain\nlands on the north-east side of the Tennessee._\n\n February 16, 1793.\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of\nRepresentatives of the United States, the petition of John Rogers, setting\nforth, that as an officer of the State of Virginia, during the last war,\nhe became entitled to two thousand acres of lands on the north-east side\nof the Tennessee, at its confluence with the Ohio, and to two thousand\nfour hundred acres in different parcels, between the same river and\nthe Mississippi, all of them within the former limit of Virginia, which\nlands were allotted to him under an act of the Legislature of Virginia,\nbefore its deed of cession to the United States; that by the treaty of\nHopewell, in 1786, the part of the country comprehending these lands\nwas ceded to the Chickasaw Indians; and praying compensation for the same,\n\nReports, That the portion of country comprehending the said parcels of\nland, has been ever understood to be claimed, and has certainly been\nused, by the Chickasaw and Cherokee Indians for their hunting grounds.\nThe Chickasaws holding exclusively from the Mississippi to the Tennessee,\nand extending their claim across that river, eastwardly, into the claims\nof the Cherokees, their conterminous neighbors.\n\nThat the government of Virginia was so well apprized of the rights of\nthe Chickasaws to a portion of country within the limit of that State,\nthat about the year 1780, they instructed their agent, residing with the\nsouthern Indians, to avail himself of the first opportunity which should\noffer, to purchase the same from them, and that, therefore, any act of\nthat Legislature allotting these lands to their officers and soldiers\nmust probably have been passed on the supposition, that a purchase of\nthe Indian right could be made, which purchase, however, has never been\nmade.\n\nThat, at the treaty of Hopewell, the true boundary between the United\nStates on the one part, and the Cherokees and Chickasaws on the other,\nwas examined into and acknowledged, and by consent of all parties, the\nunsettled limits between the Cherokees and Chickasaws were at the same\ntime ascertained, and in that part particularly, were declared to be the\nhighlands dividing the waters of the Cumberland and Tennessee, whereby\nthe whole of the petitioner's locations were found to be in the Chickasaw\ncountry.\n\nThat the right of occupation of the Cherokees and Chickasaws in this\nportion of the country, having never been obtained by the United States,\nor those under whom they claim it, cannot be said to have been ceded by\nthem at the treaty of Hopewell, but only recognized as belonging to the\nChickasaws, and retained to them.\n\nThat the country south of the Ohio was formerly contested between the\nSix Nations and the southern Indians for hunting grounds.\n\nThat the Six Nations sold for a valuable consideration to the then\ngovernment their right to that country, describing it as extending from\nthe mouth of the Tennessee upwards. That no evidence can at this time\nand place be procured, as to the right of the southern Indians, that\nis to say, the Cherokees and Chickasaws, to the same country; but it is\nbelieved that they voluntarily withdrew their claims within the Cumberland\nriver, retaining their right so far, which consequently could not be\nconveyed from them, or to us, by the act of the Six Nations, unless it be\nproved that the Six Nations had acquired a right to the country between\nthe Cumberland and Tennessee rivers by conquest over the Cherokees and\nChickasaws, which it is believed cannot be proved.\n\nThat, therefore, the locations of the petitioner must be considered as\nmade within the Indian territory, and insusceptible of being reduced\ninto his possession, till the Indian right be purchased.\n\nThat this places him on the same footing with Charles Russell and others,\nofficers of the same State, who had located their bounty lands in like\nmanner, within the Chickasaw lines, whose case was laid before the House\nof Representatives of the United States at the last session, and remains\nundecided on; and that the same and no other measure should be dealt to\nthis petitioner which shall be provided for them.\n\n\nXXXIII.--_Report relative to the Boundaries of the Lands between the\nOhio and the Lakes acquired by treaties from the Indians._\n\n March 10, 1793.\n\nThe Secretary of State, according to instructions received from the\nPresident of the United States,\n\nReports, That, for the information of the commissioners appointed to\ntreat with the western Indians, he has examined the several treaties\nentered into with them subsequent to the declaration of Independence,\nand relating to the lands between the Ohio and the lakes, and also the\nextent of the grants, reservations, and appropriations of the same lands,\nmade either by the United States, or by individual States within the\nsame period, and finds that the lands obtained by the said treaties, and\nnot so granted, reserved, or appropriated, are bounded by the following\nlines, to wit:\n\nNorthwardly. By a line running from the fork of the Tuscarora's branch\nof the Muskingum, at the crossing-place above Fort Lawrence. Westwardly\n(towards the portage of the Big-Miami) to the main branch of that river,\nthen down the Miami, to the fork of that river next below the old fort,\nwhich was taken by the French in 1752, thence due west to the river De la\nPanse, and down that river to the Wabash; which lines were established\nwith the Wiandots, Delawares, Chippawas, and Ottawas, by the treaty of\nFort McIntosh, and with the Shawanese by that of the Great Miami.\n\nWestwardly. By the bounds of the Wabash Indians.\n\nEastwardly. By the million of acres appropriated to military claimants,\nby the resolution of Congress of October 23, 1787, and lying in the\nangle between the seventh range of townships counted westwardly, from\nthe Pennsylvania boundary, and the tenth range counted from the Ohio\nnorthwardly along the said seventh, which million of acres may perhaps\nextend westwardly, so as to comprehend the twelfth range of townships,\ncounted in that direction from the Pennsylvania boundary, under which\nview the said twelfth range may be assumed for the eastern boundary of\nthe territory now under consideration, from the said tenth range to the\nIndian line.\n\nSouthwardly. By the northern boundary of the said tenth range of townships\nto the Sioto river, and along the said river to what shall be the\nnorthern limits of the appropriations for the Virginia line; (which two\nlast lines are those of the lands granted to the Sioto company,) thence\nalong what shall be the _northern_ limits of the said appropriations\nof the Virginia line to the little Miami, and along the same to what\nshall be the northern limit of one million of acres of land purchased\nby John C. Symmes; thence due west along the said northern limit of\nthe said John C. Symmes, to the Great Miami, and down the same to its\nmouth, then along the Ohio to General Clark's lands, and round the said\nlands to the Ohio again, and down the same to the Wabash, or the lands\nof the Indians inhabiting it. Which several lines are delineated on\nthe copy of Hutchins' map accompanying this report; the dotted parts of\nthe delineation denoting that they are conjectural. And it is further\nnecessary to apprize the commissioners that though the points at which\nthese several lines touches the Ohio, are taken from actual surveys,\nyet the country included by the said lines, not being laid down from\nactual survey, their lengths and intersections with each other, and\nwith the watercourses, as appearing in the maps, are not at all to be\nrelied on. No notice is here taken of the lands at the mouth of the Ohio\nappropriated for military bounties by the same resolution of Congress\nof October 22, 1787, nor of the settlement of Cahokea, Kaskaskia, Post\nVincennes, &c., because these can concern no Indians but those of the\nIllinois and Wabash, whose interests should be transacted with themselves\nseparately, and not be permitted to be placed under the patronage of\nthe western Indians.\n\n\nXXXIV.--_Report on the proceedings of the Secretary of State to transfer\nto Europe the annual fund of $40,000, appropriated to that Department._\n\n April 18, 1793.\n\nThe Secretary of State thinking it his duty to communicate to the\nPresident his proceedings of the present year for transferring to Europe\nthe annual fund of $40,000 appropriated to the Department of State, (a\nreport whereof, was unnecessary the two former years, as monies already\nin the hands of our bankers in Europe were put under his orders,)\n\nReports, That in consequence of the President's order of March 23d, he\nreceived from the Secretary of the Treasury, March 31st, a warrant on\nthe Treasurer for $39,500; that it being necessary to purchase private\nbills of exchange to transfer the money to Europe, he consulted with\npersons acquainted with that business, who advised him not to let it\nbe known that he was to purchase bills at all, as it would raise the\nexchange; and to defer the purchase a few days until the British packet\nshould be gone, on which event bills generally sunk some few per cent.\nHe therefore deferred the purchase, or giving any orders for it till\nApril 10th, when he engaged Mr. Vaughan (whose line of business enabled\nhim to do it without suspicion,) to make the purchase for him. He then\ndelivered the warrant to the Treasurer, and received a credit at the\nBank of the United States for $39,500, whereon he had an account opened\nbetween \"The Department of State and the Bank of the United States.\"\nThat Mr. Vaughan procured for him the next day the following bills:\n\nWilling, Morris, and Swanwich, on John and Francis Baring & Co., London,\n\u00a33,000=$13,000.\n\nWalter Stewart on Joseph Birch, March, Liverpool, \u00a3400=$1,733 33.\n\nRobert Gilmer & Co., on James Strachan and James Mackenzie, London,\nendorsed by Mordecai Lewis.\n\n \u00a3200 }\n 150 } \u00a3600 $2,600\n 250 } --------------------\n \u00a34,000 = $17,333 33.\n\nAveraging 4s. 7-38/100d. the dollar, or about 2\u00bd per cent. above par,\nwhich added to the one per cent loss heretofore always sustained on\nthe government bills (which allowed but 99 florins, instead of 100 do.\nfor every $40) will render the fund somewhat larger this year than\nheretofore; that these bills being drawn on London, (for none could\nbe got on Amsterdam but to considerable loss, added to the risk of the\npresent possible situation of that place), he had them made payable to\nMr. Pinckney, and enclosed them to him by Captain Cutting, in the letter\nof April 12th, now communicated to the President, and at the same time\nwrote the letters of the same date to our bankers at Amsterdam and to\nCol. Humphreys, now also communicated to the President, which will place\nunder his view the footing on which this business is put, and which is\nstill subject to any change he may think proper to direct, as neither\nthe letters, nor bills are yet gone.\n\nThe Secretary of State proposes, hereafter, to remit in the course of\neach quarter $10,000 for the ensuing quarter, as that will enable him\nto take advantage of the times when exchange is low. He proposes to\ndirect, at this time, a further purchase of $12,166 66, (which with the\n$500 formerly obtained and $17,333 33 now remitted, will make $30,000\nof this year's fund,) at long sight, which circumstance with the present\nlow rate of exchange, will enable him to remit it to advantage.\n\nHe has only further to add that he delivered to Mr. Vaughan orders on\nthe bank of the United States in favor of the persons themselves from\nwhom the bills were purchased, for their respective sums.\n\n\nXXXV.--_Opinion on the question whether the United States have a right\nto renounce their treaties with France, or to hold them suspended till\nthe government of that country shall be established._\n\n April 28, 1793.\n\nI proceed in compliance with the requisition of the President to give an\nopinion in writing on the general question, whether the United States\nhave a right to renounce their treaties with France, or to hold them\nsuspended till the government of that country shall be established?\n\nIn the consultation at the President's on the 19th inst., the Secretary\nof the Treasury took the following positions and consequences. France\nwas a monarchy when we entered into treaties with it; but it has declared\nitself a republic, and is preparing a republican form of government. As\nit may issue in a republic or a military despotism, or something else\nwhich may possibly render our alliance with it dangerous to ourselves,\nwe have a right of election to renounce the treaty altogether, or to\ndeclare it suspended till their government shall be settled in the form\nit is ultimately to take; and then we may judge whether we will call\nthe treaties into operation again, or declare them forever null. Having\nthat right of election, now, if we receive their minister without any\nqualifications, it will amount to an act of election to continue the\ntreaties; and if the change they are undergoing should issue in a form\nwhich should bring danger on us, we shall not be then free to renounce\nthem. To elect to continue them is equivalent to the making a new\ntreaty, at this time, in the same form, that is to say, with a clause\nof guarantee; but to make a treaty with a clause of guarantee, during\na war, is a departure from neutrality, and would make us associates in\nthe war. To renounce or suspend the treaties, therefore, is a necessary\nact of neutrality.\n\nIf I do not subscribe to the soundness of this reasoning, I do most fully\nto its ingenuity. I shall now lay down the principles which, according\nto my understanding, govern the case.\n\nI consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of\nall authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns\nby any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually, or\nthe organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that\nall the acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation,\nare the acts of the nation, are obligatory to them and enure to their\nuse, and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the\nform of the government, or of the persons administering it, consequently\nthe treaties between the United States and France, were not treaties\nbetween the United States and Louis Capet, but between the two nations of\nAmerica and France; and the nations remaining in existence, though both\nof them have since changed their forms of government, the treaties are\nnot annulled by these changes. The law of nations, by which this question\nis to be determined, is composed of three branches. 1. The moral law of\nour nature. 2. The usages of nations. 3. Their special conventions. The\nfirst of these only concerns this question, that is to say the moral\nlaw to which man has been subjected by his creator, and of which his\nfeelings or conscience, as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with\nwhich his creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between\nindividual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a\nstate of society, and the aggregate of the duties of all the individuals\ncomposing the society constitutes the duties of that society towards any\nother; so that between society and society the same moral duties exist\nas did between the individuals composing them, while in an unassociated\nstate, and their maker not having released them from those duties on\ntheir forming themselves into a nation. Compacts then, between nation\nand nation, are obligatory on them by the same moral law which obliges\nindividuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however,\nwhich sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and\nman; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance,\nfor instance, becomes _impossible_, non-performance is not immoral;\nso if performance becomes _self-destructive_ to the party, the law of\nself-preservation overrules the laws of obligation in others. For the\nreality of these principles I appeal to the true fountains of evidence,\nthe head and heart of every rational and honest man. It is there nature\nhas written her moral laws, and where every man may read them for\nhimself. He will never read there the permission to annul his obligations\nfor a time, or forever, whenever they become dangerous, useless, or\ndisagreeable; certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems\nto be said in an authority which has been quoted, (Vattel, p. 2, 197) and\nthough he may, under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be\nimminent, and the degree great. Of these, it is true, that nations are\nto be judges for themselves; since no one nation has a right to sit in\njudgment over another, but the tribunal of our consciences remains, and\nthat also of the opinion of the world. These will revise the sentence\nwe pass in our own case, and as we respect these, we must see that in\njudging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial and rigorous\njudges.\n\nBut reason which gives this right of self-liberation from a contract in\ncertain cases, has subjected it to certain just limitations.\n\nI. The danger which absolves us must be great, inevitable and imminent.\nIs such the character of that now apprehended from our treaties with\nFrance? What is that danger? 1st. Is it that if their government issues\nin a military despotism, an alliance with them may taint us with despotic\nprinciples? But their government when we allied ourselves to it, was\nperfect despotism, civil, and military, yet the treaties were made in\nthat very state of things, and, therefore, that danger can furnish no\njust cause.\n\n2d. Is it that their government may issue in a republic, and too much\nstrengthen our republican principles? But this is the hope of the great\nmass of our constituents, and not their dread. They do not look with\nlonging to the happy mean of a limited monarchy.\n\n3d. But, says the doctrine I am combatting, the change the French are\nundergoing, may possibly end in something we know not what, and may bring\non us danger we know not whence. In short, it may end in a Raw-head and\nbloody bones in the dark. Very well--let Raw-head and bloody bones come.\nWe shall be justified in making our peace with him by renouncing our\nancient friends and his enemies; for observe, it is not the _possibility\nof danger_ which absolves a party from his contract for that possibility\nalways exists, and in every case. It existed in the present one, at the\nmoment of making the contract. If _possibilities_ would void contracts,\nthere never could be a valid contract, for possibilities hang over\neverything. Obligation is not suspended till the danger is become real,\nand the moment of it so imminent, that we can no longer avoid decision\nwithout forever losing the opportunity to do it. But can a danger which\nhas not yet taken its shape, which does not yet exist, and never may\nexist which cannot therefore be defined--can such a danger, I ask, be\nso imminent that if we fail to pronounce on it in this moment, we can\nnever have another opportunity of doing it?\n\n4. As to the danger apprehended, Is it that (the treaties remaining\nvalid) the clause guaranteeing their West Indian lands will engage us\nin the war? But does the guarantee engage us to enter into the war on\nany event? Are we to enter into it before we are called on by our allies?\n\nHave we been called on by them? Shall we ever be called on?\n\nIs it their interest to call on us?\n\nCan they call on us before their islands are invaded, or immediately\nthreatened?\n\nIf they can save them themselves, have they a right to call on us?\n\nAre we obliged to go to war at once, without trying peaceable negotiations\nwith their enemy?\n\nIf all these questions are against us, there are still others left behind.\n\nAre we in a condition to go to war?\n\nCan we be expected to begin before we are in condition?\n\nWill the islands be lost if we do not save them?\n\nHave we the means of saving them?\n\nIf we cannot save them, are we bound to go to war for a desperate object?\n\nMany, if not most of these questions offer grounds of doubt whether the\nclause of guarantee will draw us into the war. Consequently, if this\nbe danger apprehended, it is not yet certain enough to authorize us in\nsound morality to declare, at this moment, the treaties null.\n\n5. Is danger apprehended from the 17th article of the treaty of commerce,\nwhich admits French ships of war and privateers to come and go freely,\nwith prizes made on their enemies, while their enemies are not to have the\nsame privilege with prizes made on the French? But Holland and Prussia\nhave approved of this article in our treaty with France, by subscribing\nto an express salvo of it in our treaties with them. (Dutch treaty 22,\nconvention 6. Prussian treaty 19.) And England, in her last treaty with\nFrance, (Art. 40,) has entered into the same stipulation verbatim, and\nplaced us in her ports on the same footing in which she is in ours, in\ncase of a war of either of us with France. If we are engaged in such a\nwar, England must receive prizes made on us by the French, and exclude\nthose made on the French by us. Nay, further; in this very article of\nher treaty with France, is a salvo of any similar article in any anterior\ntreaty of either party; and ours with France being anterior, this salvo\nconfirms it expressly. Neither of these three powers, then, have a right\nto complain of this article in our treaty.\n\n6. Is the danger apprehended from the 22d article of our treaty of\ncommerce, which prohibits the enemies of France from fitting out\nprivateers in our posts, or selling their prizes here; but we are free\nto refuse the same thing to France, there being no stipulation to the\ncontrary; and we ought to refuse it on principles of fair neutrality.\n\n7. But the reception of a minister from the republic of France, without\nqualifications, it is thought, will bring us into danger; because this,\nit is said, will determine the continuance of the treaty, and take\nfrom us the right of self-liberation, when at any time hereafter our\nsafety would require us to use it. The reception of the minister at\nall, (in favor of which Colonel Hamilton has given his opinion, though\nreluctantly, as he confessed,) is an acknowledgment of the legitimacy\nof their government; and if the qualifications meditated are to deny\nthat legitimacy, it will be a curious compound which is to admit and\nto deny the same thing. But I deny that the reception of a minister has\nany thing to do with the treaties. There is not a word in either of them\nabout sending ministers. This has been done between us under the common\nusage of nations, and can have no effect either to continue or annul\nthe treaties.\n\nBut how can any act of election have the effect to continue a treaty\nwhich is acknowledged to be going on still?--for it was not pretended\nthe treaty was void, but only voidable if we choose to declare it so.\nTo make it void, would require an act of election, but to let it go on,\nrequires only that we should do nothing; and doing nothing can hardly\nbe an infraction of peace or neutrality.\n\nBut I go further and deny that the most explicit declaration made at this\nmoment that we acknowledge the obligation of the treaties, could take\nfrom us the right of non-compliance at any future time, when compliance\nwould involve us in great and inevitable danger.\n\nI conclude, then, that few of these sources threaten any danger at all;\nand from none of them is it inevitable; and consequently, none of them\ngive us the right at this moment of releasing ourselves from our treaties.\n\nII. A second limitation on our right of releasing ourselves, is that we\nare to do it from so much of the treaties only as is bringing great and\ninevitable danger on us, and not from the residue, allowing the other\nparty a right at the same time, to determine whether on our non-compliance\nwith that part, they will declare the whole void. This right they would\nhave, but we should not. Vattel, 2. 202. The only part of the treaty\nwhich can really lead us into danger, is the clause of guarantee. That\nclause is all that we could suspend in any case, and the residue will\nremain or not at the will of the other party.\n\nIII. A third limitation is that when a party from necessity or danger\nwithholds compliance with part of a treaty, it is bound to make\ncompensation where the nature of the case admits and does not dispense\nwith it. 2 Vattel, 324. Wolf, 270. 443. If actual circumstances excuse\nus from entering into the war under the clause of guarantee, it will be\na question whether they excuse us from compensation. Our weight in the\nwar admits of an estimate; and that estimate would form the measure of\ncompensation.\n\nIf, in withholding a compliance with any part of the treaties we do it\nwithout just cause or compensation, we give to France a cause of war,\nand so become associated in it on the other side. An injured friend is\nthe bitterest of foes, and France has not discovered either timidity,\nor over-much forbearance on the late occasions. Is this the position\nwe wish to take for our constituents? It is certainly not the one they\nwould take for themselves.\n\nI will proceed now to examine the principal authority which has been\nrelied on for establishing the right of self-liberation; because though\njust in part, it would lead us far beyond justice, if taken in all the\nlatitude of which his expressions would admit. Questions of natural right\nare triable by their conformity with the moral sense and reason of man.\nThose who write treatises of natural law, can only declare what their\nown moral sense and reason dictate in the several cases they state. Such\nof them as happen to have feelings and a reason coincident with those\nof the wise and honest part of mankind, are respected and quoted as\nwitnesses of what is morally right or wrong in particular cases. Grotius,\nPuffendorf, Wolf, and Vattel are of this number. Where they agree their\nauthority is strong; but where they differ, (and they often differ,) we\nmust appeal to our own feelings and reason to decide between them. The\npassages in question shall be traced through all these writers; that we\nmay see wherein they concur, and where that concurrence is wanting. It\nshall be quoted from them in the order in which they wrote, that is to\nsay, from Grotius first, as being the earliest writer, Puffendorf next,\nthen Wolf, and lastly Vattel, as latest in time.\n\nGROTIUS 2. 16. 16.\n\nHither must be referred the common question concerning personal and\nreal treaties. If indeed it be with a free people, there can be no doubt\nbut that the engagement is in its nature real, because the subject is a\npermanent thing, and even though the government of the State be changed\ninto a kingdom, the treaty remains; because the same body remains though\nthe head is changed; and as it was before now, the government which is\nexercised by a king does not cease to be the government of the people.\nThere is an exception when the object seems peculiar to the government,\nas if free cities contract a league for the defence of their freedom.\n\nPUFFENDORF 8. 9. 6.\n\nIt is certain that every alliance made with a republic is real in its\nnature, and continues consequently to the terms agreed on by the treaty,\nalthough the magistrates who concluded it be dead before, so that the\nform of government is changed even from a democracy to a monarchy, for\nin this case the people do not cease to be the same, and the king, in\nthe case supposed, being established by the consent of the people who\nabolished the republican government, is understood to accept the crown\nwith all the engagements which the people confessing it had contracted\nas being free and governing themselves. There must nevertheless be\nan exception of the alliances contracted with a view to preserve the\npresent government; as if two republics league for mutual defence against\nthose who would undertake to invade their liberty; for if one of these\ntwo people consent afterwards voluntarily to change the form of the\ngovernment, the alliance ends of itself, because the reason on which it\nwas founded no longer subsists.\n\nWOLF 1146.\n\nThe alliance which is made with a free people, or with a popular\ngovernment, is a real alliance; and as when the form of government\nchanges, the people remain the same (for it is the association which\nforms the people, and not the manner of administering the government).\nThis alliance subsists, though the form of government changes, _unless_,\nas is evident, the reason of the alliance was particular to the popular\nstate.\n\nVATTEL 2. 197.\n\nThe same question presents itself in real alliances, and in general on\nevery alliance made with a State, and not in particular with a king for\nthe defence of his person. We ought, without doubt, to defend our ally\nagainst all invasion, against all foreign violence, and even against\nrebel subjects. We ought, in like manner, to defend a republic against\nthe enterprises of an oppressor of the public liberty. But we ought to\nrecollect that we are the ally of the state or of the nation, and not\nits judge. If the nation has deposed its king in form; if the people of a\nrepublic have driven away its magistrates, and have established themselves\nfree, or if they have acknowledged the authority of an usurper, whether\nexpressly or tacitly, to oppose these domestic arrangements--to contest\ntheir justice or validity--would be to meddle with the government of the\nnation, and to do it an injury. The ally remains the ally of the state,\nnotwithstanding the change which has taken place; _but if this change\nrenders the alliance useless, dangerous, or disagreeable to it, it is\nfree to renounce it; for it may say with truth, that it would not have\nallied itself with this nation, if it had been under the present form\nof its government_.\n\nThe doctrine then of Grotius, Puffendorf, and Wolf is, that \"treaties\nremain obligatory, notwithstanding any change in the form of government,\nexcept in the single case, where the preservation of that form was the\nobject of the treaty;\" there the treaty extinguishes, not by the election\nor declaration of the party remaining in _statu quo_, but independently\nof that, by the evanishment of the object. Vattel lays down in fact the\nsame doctrine, that treaties continue obligatory, notwithstanding a change\nof government by the will of the other party;--that to oppose that will\nwould be a wrong; and that the ally remains an ally, notwithstanding the\nchange. So far he concurs with all the previous writers:--but he then\nadds what they had not said nor could say; but if this change renders\nthe alliance _useless_, _dangerous_ or _disagreeable_ to it, it is free to\nrenounce it. It was unnecessary for him to have specified the exception\nof _danger_ in this particular case, because the exception exists in all\ncases, and its extent has been considered; but when he adds that, because\na contract is become merely _useless_ or _disagreeable_ we are free to\nrenounce it,--he is in opposition to Grotius, Puffendorf, and Wolf, who\nadmit no such license against the obligation of treaties, and he is in\nopposition to the morality of every honest man to whom we may safely\nappeal to decide whether he feels himself free to renounce a contract\nthe moment it becomes _merely useless_ or _disagreeable_ to him. We may\nappeal to Vattel himself in those parts of his book where he cannot be\nmisunderstood, and to his known character, as one of the most zealous\nand constant advocates for the preservation of good faith in all our\ndealings. Let us hear him on other occasions; and first where he shows\nwhat degree of danger or injury will authorize self-liberation from a\ntreaty: \"If simple lesion,\" (lesion--the loss sustained by selling a\nthing for less than half value, which degree of loss renders the sale\nvoid by the Roman law,) \"if simple lesion,\" says he, \"or some degree of\ndisadvantage in a treaty does not suffice to render it invalid, it is\nnot so as to inconvenience which would go to the _ruin_ of the nation.\nAs every treaty ought to be made by sufficient power, a treaty pernicious\nto the State is null, and not at all obligatory. No governor of a nation\nhaving power to engage things capable of _destroying_ the State, for\nthe safety of which the empire entrusts to him, the nation itself, bound\nnecessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter\ninto engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations.\" Here then\nwe find that the degree of injury or danger which he deems sufficient to\nliberate us from a treaty, is that which would go to the absolute ruin or\ndestruction of the State;--not simply the lesion of the Roman law, not\nmerely the being disadvantageous or dangerous; for as he himself says,\nSection 158, \"lesion cannot render a treaty invalid. It is his duty who\nenters into engagements, to weigh well all things before he concludes. He\nmay do with his property what he pleases. He may relinquish his rights\nor renounce his advantages, as he judges proper. The acceptant is not\nobliged to inform himself of his motives nor to weigh then just value.\nIf we could free ourselves from a compact because we find ourselves\ninjured by it, there would be nothing firm in the contracts of nations.\nCivil laws may set limits to lesion, and determine the degree capable\nof producing a nullity of the contract; but sovereigns acknowledge no\njudge. How establish lesion among them? Who will determine the degree\nsufficient to invalidate a treaty? The happiness and peace of nations\nrequire manifestly that their treaties should not depend on a means of\nnullity so vague and so dangerous.\"\n\nLet us hear him again on the general subject of the observation of\ntreaties, Section 163: \"It is demonstrated in natural law that he who\npromises another, confers on him a perfect right to require the thing\npromised, and that consequently, not to observe a perfect promise is to\nviolate the right of another; it is as manifest injustice as to plunder\nany one of their right. All the tranquillity, the happiness and security\nof mankind, rest on justice or the obligation to respect the rights of\nothers. The respect of others for our right of domain and property is\nthe security of our actual possessions. The faith of promises is the\nsecurity for the things which cannot be delivered or executed on the spot.\nNo more security, no more commerce among men, if they think themselves\nnot bound to preserve faith, to keep their word. This obligation, then,\nis as necessary as it is natural and indubitable among nations who live\ntogether in a state of nature, and who acknowledge no superior on earth.\nTo maintain order and peace in their society, nations and their governors\nthen ought to observe inviolably their promises and their treaties. This\nis a great truth, although too often neglected in practice, is generally\nacknowledged by all nations, the reproach of perfidy is a bitter affront\namong sovereigns. Now he who does not observe a treaty is assuredly\nperfidious, since he violates his faith. On the contrary, nothing is\nso glorious to a prince and his nation as the reputation of inviolable\nfidelity to his word.\" Again, Section 219, \"Who will doubt that treaties\nare of the things sacred among nations? They decide matters the most\nimportant; they impose rules on the pretensions of sovereigns, they\ncause the rights of nations to be acknowledged; they assume their most\nprecious interests. Among political bodies, sovereigns, who acknowledge\nno superior on earth, treaties are the only means of adjusting their\ndifferent pretensions; of establishing a rule, to know on what to\ncount, on what to depend. But treaties are but vain words, if nations\ndo not consider them as respectable engagements, as rules inviolable for\nsovereigns, and sacred through the whole earth.\" Section 220: \"The faith\nof treaties, that firm and sincere will, that invincible constancy in\nfulfilling engagements, of which a declaration is made in a treaty, is\nthen holy and sacred among nations, whose safety and repose it ensures;\nand if nations will not be wanting to themselves, they will load with\ninfamy whoever violates his faith.\"\n\nAfter evidence so copious and explicit of the respect of this author\nfor the sanctity of treaties, we should hardly have expected that his\nauthority would have been resorted to for a wanton invalidation of them\nwhenever they should become merely _useless or disagreeable_. We should\nhardly have expected that, rejecting all the rest of his book, this\nscrap would have been culled and made the hook whereon to hang such a\nchain of immoral consequences. Had the passage accidentally met our eye,\nwe should have imagined it had fallen from the author's pen under some\nmomentary view, not sufficiently developed to found a conjecture what\nhe meant, and we may certainly affirm that a fragment like this cannot\nweigh against the authority of all other writers; against the uniform\nand systematic doctrine of the very work from which it is torn; against\nthe moral feelings and the reason of all honest men. If the terms of the\nfragment are not misunderstood, they are in full contradiction to all the\nwritten and unwritten evidences of morality. If they are misunderstood,\nthey are no longer a foundation for the doctrines which have been built\non them.\n\nBut even had this doctrine been as true as it is manifestly false, it\nwould have been asked, to whom is it that the treaties with France have\nbecome _disagreeable_? How will it be proved that they are _useless_?\n\nThe conclusion of the sentence suggests a reflection too strong to be\nsuppressed, \"for the party may say with truth that it would not have\nallied itself with this nation if it had been under the present form of\nits government.\" The republic of the United States allied itself with\nFrance when under a despotic government. She changes her government, and\ndeclares it shall be a republic; prepares a form of republic extremely\nfree, and in the meantime is governing herself as such. And it is proposed\nthat America shall declare the treaties void, because it may say with\ntruth that it would not have allied itself with that nation if it had\nbeen under the present form of its government. Who is the American who\ncan say with truth that he would not have allied himself to France if\nshe had been a republic? Or that a republic of any form would be as\n_disagreeable_ as her ancient despotism?\n\nUpon the whole I conclude, that the treaties are still binding,\nnotwithstanding the change of government in France; that no part of them\nbut the clause of guarantee holds up _danger_, even at a distance, and\nconsequently that a liberation from no other part would be prepared in\nany case; that if that clause may ever bring _danger_, it is neither\nextreme nor imminent, nor even probable that the authority for renouncing\na treaty, when _useless or disagreeable_, is either misunderstood or in\nopposition to itself, to all other writers, and to every moral feeling;\nthat were it not so, these treaties are in fact neither useless or\ndisagreeable; that the receiving a minister from France at this time is\nan act of no significance with respect to the treaties, amounting neither\nto an admission nor denial of them, forasmuch as he comes not under any\nstipulation in them; that were it an explicit admission, or were it an\nexpress declaration of their obligation now to be made, it would not take\nfrom us that right which exists at all times, of liberating ourselves\nwhen an adherence to the treaties would be _ruinous_ or _destructive_ to\nthe society; and that the not renouncing the treaties now is so far from\nbeing a breach of neutrality, that the doing it would be the breach, by\ngiving just cause of war to France.\n\n\nXXXVI.--_Opinion relative to granting of passports to American vessels._\n\n May 3, 1793.\n\nIt has been stated in our treaties with the French, Dutch and Prussians,\nthat when it happens that either party is at war, and the other neutral,\nthe neutral shall give passports of a certain tenor to the _vessels\nbelonging to their subjects_, in order to avoid dissension; and it\nhas been thought that passports of such high import to the persons and\nproperty of our citizens should have the highest sanction; that of the\nsignature of the President, and seal of the United States. The authority\nof Congress also, in the case of sea letters to East India vessels, was\nin favor of this sanction. It is now become a question whether these\npassports shall be given only to ships _owned and built_ in the United\nStates, or may be given also to those _owned_ in the United States,\nthough _built_ in foreign countries.\n\nThe persons and property of our citizens are entitled to the protection\nof our government in all places where they may lawfully go. No laws\nforbid a merchant to buy, own, and use a _foreign-built_ vessel. She is,\nthen, his lawful property, and entitled to the protection of his nation\nwhenever he is lawfully using her.\n\nThe laws indeed, for the encouragement of ship building, have given to\nhome-built vessels the exclusive privilege of being registered and paying\nlighter duties. To this privilege, therefore, the foreign-built vessel,\nthough owned at home, does not pretend. But the laws have not said that\nthey withdraw their protection from the foreign-built vessel. To this\nprotection, then, she retains her title, notwithstanding the preference\ngiven to the home-built vessel as to duties. It would be hard indeed\nbecause the law has given one valuable right to home-built vessels, to\ninfer that it had taken away all rights from those foreign-built.\n\nIn conformity with the idea that all the vessels of a State are entitled\nto its protection, the treaties before mentioned have settled that\npassports shall be given, not merely to the vessels _built_ in the United\nStates, but to the vessels belonging to them; and when one of these\nnations shall take a vessel, if she has not such a passport, they are\nto conclude she does not _belong_ to the United States, and is therefore\nlawful prize; so that to refuse these passports to foreign-built vessels\n_belonging_ to our merchants, is to give them up to capture with their\ncargoes. The most important interests of the United States hang upon this\nquestion. The produce of the earth is their principle source of wealth.\nOur _home-built_ vessels would suffice for the transportation of a very\nsmall part of this produce to market, and even a part of these vessels\nwill be withdrawn by high premiums to other lines of business. All the\nrest of our produce, then, must remain on our hands, or have its price\nreduced by a war insurance. Many descriptions of our produce will not\nbear this reduction, and would, therefore, remain on hand.\n\nWe shall lose also a great proportion of the profits of navigation. The\ngreat harvest for these is when other nations are at war, and our flag\nneutral. But if we can augment our stock of shipping only by the slow\nprocess of building, the harvest will be over while we are only preparing\ninstruments to reap it. The moment of breeding seamen will be lost for\nwant of bottoms to embark them in.\n\nFrance and Holland permit our vessels to be neutralized with them; not\neven to suffer theirs to be purchased here might give them just cause to\nrevoke the privilege of naturalization given to ours, and would inflict\non the ship-building States and artizans a severe injury.\n\n_Objection._ To protect foreign-built vessels will lessen the demand\nfor ship building here.\n\n_Answer._ Not at all; because as long as we can build cheaper than other\nnations, we shall be employed in preference to others; besides, shall\nwe permit the greatest part of the produce of our fields to rot on our\nhands, or lose half its value by subjecting it to high insurance, merely\nthat our ship builders may have brisker employ? Shall the whole mass of\nour farmers be sacrificed to the class of ship wrights?\n\n_Objection._ There will be collusive transfers of foreign ships to our\nmerchants, merely to obtain for them the cover of our passports.\n\n_Answer._ The same objection lies to giving passports to home-built\nvessels. They may be owned, and are owned by foreigners, and may be\ncollusively re-transferred to our merchants to obtain our passports.\nTo lessen the danger of collusion, however, I should be for delivering\npassports in our own ports only, if they were to be sent blank to foreign\nports to be delivered there, the power of checking collusion would be\nsmall, and they might be employed to cover purposes of no benefit to\nus (which we ought not to countenance), and to throw our vessels out\nof business; but if issued only to vessels in our own ports, we can\ngenerally be certain that the vessel is our property; and always that\nthe _cargo_ is of our produce. State the case that it shall be found\nthat all our shipping, home-built and foreign-built, is inadequate to\nthe transportation of our produce to market; so that after all these\nare loaded, there shall yet remain produce on hand. This must be put\ninto vessels owned by foreigners. Should these obtain collusively the\nprotection of our passport, it will cover their _vessel_ indeed, but\nit will cover also our _cargo_. I repeat it then, that if the issuing\npassports be confined to our ports, it will be our own _vessels_ for\nthe most part, and always our _cargoes_ which will be covered by them.\n\nI am, therefore, of opinion, that passports ought to be issued to all\nvessels _belonging_ to citizens of the United States, but only on their\nclearing out from our own ports, and for that voyage only.\n\n\nXXXVII.--_Opinion relative to case of a British vessel captured by a\nFrench vessel, purchased by French citizens, and fitted out as a Privateer\nin one of our ports._\n\n May 16, 1793.\n\nThe facts suggested, or to be taken for granted, because the contrary\nis not known, in the case now to be considered, are, that a vessel was\npurchased at Charleston, and fitted out as a privateer by French citizens,\nmanned with foreigners chiefly, but partly with citizens of the United\nStates. The command given to a French citizen by a regular commission\nfrom his government; that she has made prize of an English vessel in the\nopen sea, and sent her into Philadelphia. The British minister demands\nrestitution, and the question is, whether the Executive of the United\nStates shall undertake to make it?\n\nThis transaction may be considered, 1st, as an offence against the United\nStates; 2d, as an injury to Great Britain.\n\nIn the first view it is not now to be taken up. The opinion being, that it\nhas been an act of disrespect to the jurisdiction of the United States,\nof which proper notice is to be taken at a proper time.\n\nUnder the second point of view, it appears to me wrong on the part of the\nUnited States (where not constrained by treaties) to permit one party in\nthe present war to do what cannot be permitted to the other. We cannot\npermit the enemies of France to fit out privateers in our ports, by the\n22d article of our treaty. We ought not, therefore, to permit France\nto do it; the treaty leaving us free to refuse, and the refusal being\nnecessary to preserve a fair neutrality. Yet considering that the present\nis the first case which has arisen; that it has been in the first moment\nof the war, in one of the most distant ports of the United States, and\nbefore measures could be taken by the government to meet all the cases\nwhich may flow from the infant state of our government, and novelty of\nour position, it ought to be placed by Great Britain among the accidents\nof loss to which a nation is exposed in a state of war, and by no means\nas a premeditated wrong on the part of the government. In the last\nlight it cannot be taken, because the act from which it results placed\nthe United States with the offended, and not the offending party. Her\nminister has seen himself that there could have been on our part neither\npermission or connivance. A very moderate apology then from the United\nStates ought to satisfy Great Britain.\n\nThe one we have made already is ample, to wit, a pointed disapprobation\nof the transaction, a promise to prosecute and punish according to law\nsuch of our citizens as have been concerned in it, and to take effectual\nmeasures against a repetition. To demand more would be a wrong in Great\nBritain; for to demand satisfaction _beyond_ what is adequate, is wrong.\nBut it is proposed further to take the prize from the captors and restore\nher to the English. This is a very serious proposition.\n\nThe dilemma proposed in our conferences, appears to me unanswerable.\nEither the commission to the commander of the privateer was good, or not\ngood. If not good, then the tribunals of the country will take cognizance\nof the transaction, receive the demand of the former owner, and make\nrestitution of the capture; and there being, on this supposition, regular\nremedy at law, it would be irregular for the government to interpose. If\nthe commission be good, then the capture having been made on the high\nseas, under a valid commission from a power at war with Great Britain,\nthe British owner has lost all his right, and the prize would be deemed\ngood, even in his own courts, were the question to be brought before his\nown courts. He has now no more claim on the vessel than any stranger\nwould have who never owned her, his whole right being transferred by\nthe laws of war to the captor.\n\nThe legal right then being in the captors, on what ground can we take\nit from him? Not on that of _right_, for the right has been transferred\nto him. It can only be by an act of _force_, that is to say, of reprisal\nfor the offence committed against us in the port of Charleston. But the\nmaking reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. Remonstrance and\nrefusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it\nis considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the\ncase of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were important\nenough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step, Congress must be\ncalled on to take it; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with\nthem by the Constitution, and not with the Executive.\n\nI therefore think that the satisfaction already made to the _government_\nof Great Britain is quite equal to what ought to be desired in the\npresent case; that the property of the British _owner_ is transferred by\nthe laws of war to the _captor_; that for us to take it from the captor\nwould be an act of force or reprisal, which the circumstances of the\ncase do not justify, and to which the powers of the Executive are not\ncompetent by the Constitution.\n\n\nXXXVIII.-_Opinion on the proposition of the Secretary of the Treasury\nto open a new Loan._\n\n June 5, 1793.\n\nInstructions having been given to borrow two millions of florins in\nHolland, and the Secretary of the Treasury proposing to open a further\nloan of three millions of florins, which he says \"a comprehensive view\nof the affairs of the United States, in various relations, appears to\nhim to recommend,\" the President is pleased to ask whether I see any\nobjections to the proposition?\n\nThe power to borrow money is confided to the President by the two acts\nof the 4th and 12th of August, 1790, and the monies, when borrowed, are\nappropriated to two purposes only: to wit, the twelve millions to be\nborrowed under the former, are appropriated to discharge the arrears\nof interest and instalments of the foreign debt; and the two millions,\nunder the latter, to the purchase of the public debt, under direction\nof the trustees of the sinking fund.\n\nThese appropriations render very simple the duties of the President in\nthe discharge of this trust. He has only to look to the _payment_ of the\nforeign debt, and the purchase of the general one. And in order to judge\nfor himself of the necessity of the loan proposed for effecting these\ntwo purposes, he will need from the treasury the following statements:--\n\nA. A statement of the nett amount of the loans already made under these\nacts, adding to that the two millions of florins now in course of being\nborrowed. This will form the _debit_ of the trust.\n\nThe _credit_ side of the account will consist of the following statements,\nto wit:--\n\nB. Amount of the principal and interest of foreign debt, paid and payable,\nto the close of 1792.\n\nC. Ditto, payable to the close of 1793.\n\nD. Ditto, payable to the close of 1794 (for I think our preparations\nshould be a year beforehand).\n\nE. Amount of monies necessary for the sinking fund to the end of 1794.\n\nIf the amount of the four last articles exceeds the first, it will prove\na further loan necessary, and to what extent.\n\nThe treasury alone can furnish these statements with perfect accuracy.\nBut to show that there is probable cause to go into the examination, I\nwill hazard a statement from materials which, though perhaps not perfectly\nexact, are not much otherwise.\n\n\n_Report of January 3, 1793. New Edition._\n\n Dr.\n\n The trust for loans.\n\n A. To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792, as stated\n in the treasury report, to wit, 18,678,000 florins,\n at 99 florins to $40, the treasury exchange $7,545,912\n To loan now going on for 2,000,000 florins 808,080\n ----------\n $8,353,992\n\n Cr.\n Florins.\n B. By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1\n By reimbursement to Spain 680,000\n By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000\n ----------\n 795,093 1 = $321,239 46\n By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90\n By amount of French debt, principal and Livres.\n interest, payable to end of 1791 26,000,000\n By ditto, for 1792 3,450,000\n ----------\n 29,450,000 = 5,345,171\n C. By ditto, for 1793 3,410,000 = 618,915\n D. By ditto, for 1794 3,250,000 = 569,876\n E. By necessary for sinking fund at $50,000 a\n month, from July 1, 1793, to Dec. 31, 1794 900,000\n Balance which will remain in hands of the\n trust, at end of 1794 387,474 64\n -------------\n $8,353,992 60\n\nSo that instead of an additional loan being necessary, the monies\nalready borrowed will suffice for all the purposes to which they can be\nlegally applied to the end of 1794, and leave a surplus of $387 474 64\nto cover charges and errors. And as, on account of the unsettled state\nof the French government, it is not proposed to pay in advance, or but\nlittle so, any further sum would be lying at a dead interest and risk.\nPerhaps it might be said that new monies must be borrowed for the current\ndomestic service of the year. To this I should answer, that no law has\nauthorized the opening of a loan for this purpose.\n\nIf it should be said that the monies heretofore borrowed are so far put\nout of our power that we cannot command them before an instalment will\nbe due, I should answer, that certainly I would rather borrow than fail\nin a payment; but if borrowing will secure a payment in time, the two\nmillions of florins now borrowing are sufficient to secure it. If we\ncannot get this sum in time, then we cannot get an additional sum in time.\n\nThe above account might be stated in another way, which might, perhaps,\nbe more satisfactory, to wit:\n\n Dr.\n\n The trust for loans.\n\n To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792. 18,678,000 florins,\n at 99 florins to $40 $7,545,912\n\n Cr.\n\n Florins\n By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1\n By reimbursement to Spain 680,000\n By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000\n ---------\n 795,073 1 = $321,239 46\n By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90\n By payments to France 10,073,043 8 = 4,069,918 54\n Livres.\n By ditto to St. Domingo 4,000,000 = 726,000\n By ditto to do. 3,000,000 = 544,500\n By do. to Mr. Ternant [I state this by\n memory] 24,000 = 4,356\n Balance in hand to be carried to new debit 1,688,581 10\n -------------\n $7,545,912 00\n\n Dr.\n\n The trust for loans.\n\n To balance as per contra $1,688,581 10\n To two millions of florins, new loan, when effected 808,080\n -------------\n $2,496,661 10\n\n Cr.\n\n By the following payments when made, to wit:\n Balance due to France, to close of year 1792\n Livres.\n ($5,345,171-$5,344,774 54) $396 46\n Instalments and interest to close of year\n 1793 3,410,000 == 618,915\n do. do\n 1794 3,250,000 == 589,875\n Necessary for sinking fund from July 1, 1793,\n to December 31, 1794 900,000\n Balance will then be in hand to be carried to\n new debit 387,474 64\n -------------\n $2,496,661 10\n\nBy this statement, it would seem as if all the payments to France,\nhitherto made and ordered, would not acquit the year 1792. So that we\nhave never yet been clear of arrears to her.\n\nThe amount of the French debt is stated according to the convention, and\nthe interest is calculated accordingly. Interest on the ten million loan\nis known to have been paid for the years 1784, 1785, and is therefore\ndeducted. It is not known whether it was paid on the same loan for the\nyears 1786-7-8-9, previous to the payment of December 3, 1790, or whether\nit was included in that payment; therefore this is not deducted. But\nif, in fact, it was paid before that day, it will then have lessened\nthe debt so much, to wit, 400,000 livres a year, for four years, making\n1,600,000 florins, equal to $290,400, which sum would put us in advance\nnear half of the instalments of 1793. Note,--livres are estimated at\n18/100 cents, proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury to the French\nministry as the par of the metals, to be the rate of conversion.\n\nThis uncertainty with respect to the true state of our account with\nFrance, and the difference of the result from what has been understood,\nshows that the gentlemen who are to give opinions on this subject, must\ndo it in the dark, and suggests to the President the propriety of having\nan exact statement of the account with France communicated to them,\nas the ground on which they are to give opinions. It will probably be\nmaterial in that about to be given on the late application of Mr. Genet,\non which the Secretary of the Treasury is preparing a report.\n\n\nXXXIX.--_Opinion relative to the policy of a new loan._\n\n June 17, 1793\n\nI cannot see my way clear in the case which the President has been\npleased to ask my opinion, but by recurring to these leading questions:\n\nOf the $7,898,999 88 borrowed, or rather of the $7,545,912, nett proceeds\nthereof, how much has been applied to the _payment_ of the _foreign_,\nand _purchase_ of the _general_ debt?\n\nTo the balance thereof, which should be on hand, and the two millions\nof florins now borrowing, is any and what addition necessary, _for the\nsame objects_, for the years 1793, 1794?\n\nThe statement furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury does not answer\nthese questions. It only shows what has been done with somewhat less\nthan three millions out of near eight millions of dollars which have been\nborrowed, and in so doing it takes credit for two sums which are not to\ncome out of this sum, and therefore not to be left in the account. They\nare the following:\n\n1. A sum of $284,901 89 expended in purchases of the public debt. In the\ngeneral report of the trustees of the sinking fund, made to Congress\nthe 23d of February last, and printed, it appears, page 29, that the\nwhole amount of monies laid out by them was $1,302,407 64, from which\nwere to be deducted, as is mentioned in the note there subjoined, the\npurchases made out of the interest fund (then about $50,000 as well as I\nrecollect). Call the sum paid then $1,252,407 64. By the Treasury report,\np. 38, (new edition,) it appears that the surplus of domestic revenue to\nthe end of 1790, appropriated to this object, was $1,374,656 40, and p.\n34, that the monies drawn from Europe on account of the foreign loans,\nwere not the instrument of these purchases; and in some part, to which\nI am not able just now to turn, I recollect pretty certainly that it is\nsaid these purchases were actually carried to account, as was proper,\nagainst the domestic surplus, consequently they are not to be allowed\nin the foreign account also. Or if allowed in this, the sum will then be\ndue from the surplus account, and so must lessen the sum to be borrowed\nfor the sinking fund, which amounts to the same.\n\n2. The 1st instalment due to the bank $200,000. Though the first payment\nof the subscription of the United States to the bank might have been made,\nin the first instant, out of the foreign monies to be immediately repaid\nto them by the money borrowed of the bank, yet this useless formality\nwas avoided, and it was a mere operation of the pen on paper, without\nthe displacement of a single dollar. See reports p. 12. And, in any\nevent, the final reimbursement was never to be made out of the foreign\nfund, which was appropriated solely to the _payment_ of the _foreign_,\nand _purchase_ of the _general_ debt.\n\nThese two sums, therefore, of $284,901 89 and $200,000 are to be added\nto the balance of $575,484 28 subject to future disposition, and will\nmake $1,050,386 17 actually here, and still to be applied to the proper\nappropriation.\n\nHowever, this account, as before observed, being only of a part of the\nmonies borrowed, no judgment can be formed from it of the expediency of\nborrowing more; nor should I have stopped to make a criticism on it, but\nto show why no such sums as the two above mentioned, were inserted in\nthe general account sketched for the President, June 5. I must add that\nthe miscellaneous sum of $49,400 in this account, is probably covered\nby some other articles of that as far as it is chargeable on this fund;\nbecause that account, under one form or another, takes up all the articles\nchargeable on this fund which had appeared in the printed reports.\n\nI must, therefore, proceed to renew my statement of June 5, inserting\ntherein the 1st instalment of the Dutch loan of $404,040 40 payable this\nmonth, which not having been mentioned in any of the reports heretofore\npublished, was not inserted in my statement. I will add a like sum for\nthe year 1794, because I think we should now prepare for the whole of\nthat year.\n\nAs the Secretary of the Treasury does not seem to contemplate the\nfurnishing any fixed sum for the sinking fund, I shall leave that article\nout of the account. The President can easily add to its result any sum\nhe may decide to have furnished to that fund. The account, so corrected,\nwill stand thus:\n\n Dr.\n\n The trust for loans.\n To nett amount of loans to June 1, 1792 $7,545,912\n To loan now going on for 2,000,000 florins 808,080\n ----------\n $8,353,992\n\n Cr.\n\n Florins.\n By charges on remittances to France 10,073 1\n By reimbursement to Spain 680,000\n By interest paid to foreign officers 105,000\n -------\n 795,073 1==$321,239 46\n By principal paid to foreign officers 191,316 90\n By amount of French debt, principal and interest Livres.\n payable to end of 1791 26,000,000\n By ditto for 1792 3,450,000\n ----------\n 29,450,000 ==5,345,171\n By ditto for 1793 3,410,000 == 618,915\n By 1st instalment of Dutch debt due June 1793 404,040 40\n By instalments and interest to France for\n 1794 3,250,000 == 569,875\n By instalment to Holland for 1794 404,040 40\n Balance will then remain in hands of the trust, 499,393 84\n ------------\n $8,353,992 00\n\nSo that it appears there would be a balance in the hands of this trust,\nat the close of 1794, of $499,393 84, were no monies to be furnished in\nthe meantime to the sinking fund; but should the President determine to\nfurnish that with the $900,000 proposed in my statement of June 5, then\na loan would be necessary for about $400,000, say in near round numbers,\n1,000,000 of guilders, in addition to the 2,000,000 now borrowing. I am,\n_individually_, of opinion that that sum ought to be furnished to the\nsinking fund, and consequently that an additional loan, to this extent,\nshould be made, considering the subject in a _legal point of view_ only.\n\nThe reasons in favor of the extension are,\n\nThe apprehension of the extension of our war to other Indian nations,\nand perhaps to Europe itself.\n\nThe disability this might produce to borrow at all, [this is, in my\njudgment, a weighty consideration.]\n\nThe possibility that the government of France may become so settled\nas that we may hazard the anticipation of payment, and so avoid dead\ninterest.\n\nThe reasons against it are,\n\nThe possibility that France may continue, for some time yet, so unsettled\nas to render an anticipation of payments hazardous.\n\nThe risk of losing the capital borrowed by a successful invasion of the\ncountry of deposit, if it be left in Europe; or by an extension of the\nbankruptcies now shaking the most solid houses; and when and where they\nwill end we know not.\n\nThe loss of interest on the dead sum, if the sum itself be safe.\n\nThe execution of a power for one object, which was given to be executed\nbut for a very different one.\n\nThe commitment of the President, on this account, to events, or to the\ncriticisms of those who, though the measures should be perfectly wise,\nmay misjudge it through error or passion.\n\nThe apprehension that the head of the department means to provide idle\nmoney to be lodged in the banks ready for the corruption of the next\nlegislature, as it is believed the late ones were corrupted, by gratifying\nparticular members with vast discounts for objects of speculation.\n\nI confess that the last reasons have most weight with me.\n\n\nXL.--_Report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the\nUnited States in foreign countries._\n\n December 16, 1793.\n\nSIR,--According to the pleasure of the House of Representatives, expressed\nin their resolution of February 23, 1791, I now lay before them a report\non the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States\nin foreign countries. In order to keep the subject within those bounds\nwhich I supposed to be under the contemplation of the House, I have\nrestrained my statements to those countries only with which we carry on\na commerce of some importance, and to those articles also of our produce\nwhich are of sensible weight in the scale of our exports; and even these\narticles are sometimes grouped together, according to the degree of\nfavor or restriction with which they are received in each country, and\nthat degree expressed in general terms without detailing the exact duty\nlevied on each article. To have gone fully into these minuti\u00e6, would have\nbeen to copy the tariffs and books of rates of the different countries,\nand to have hidden, under a mass of details, those general and important\ntruths, the extraction of which, in a simple form, I conceived would best\nanswer the inquiries of the House, by condensing material information\nwithin those limits of time and attention, which this portion of their\nduties may justly claim. The plan, indeed, of minute details which have\nbeen impracticable with some countries, for want of information.\n\nSince preparing this report, which was put into its present form in\ntime to have been given in to the last session of Congress, alterations\nof the conditions of our commerce with some foreign nations have taken\nplace--some of them independent of war; some arising out of it.\n\nFrance has proposed to enter into a new treaty of commerce with us,\non liberal principles; and has, in the meantime, relaxed some of the\nrestraints mentioned in the report. Spain has, by an ordinance of June\nlast, established New Orleans, Pensacola, and St. Augustine into free\nports, for the vessels of friendly nations _having treaties of commerce_\nwith her, provided they touch for a permit at Corcubion in Gallicia,\nor at Alicant; and our rice is, by the same ordinance, excluded from\nthat country. The circumstances of war have necessarily given us freer\naccess to the West Indian islands, whilst they have also drawn on our\nnavigation vexations and depredations of the most serious nature.\n\nTo have endeavored to describe all these, would have been as impracticable\nas useless, since the scenes would have been shifting while under\ndescription. I therefore think it best to leave the report as it was\nformed, being adapted to a particular point of time, when things were\nin their settled order, that is to say, to the summer of 1792. I have\nthe honor to be, &c.\n\n_To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of\nAmerica._\n\nThe Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of\nRepresentatives, the report of a committee on the written message of\nthe President of the United States, of the 14th of February, 1791, with\ninstruction to report to Congress the nature and extent of the privileges\nand restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with\nforeign nations, and the measures which he should think proper to be\nadopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same,\nhas had the same under consideration, and thereupon makes the following\nReport:\n\nThe countries with which the United States have their chief commercial\nintercourse are Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, the United\nNetherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, and their American possessions; and\nthe articles of export, which constitute the basis of that commerce,\nwith their respective amounts, are,\n\n Bread-stuff, that is to say, bread grains, meals,\n and bread, to the annual amount of $7,649,887\n Tobacco 4,349,567\n Rice 1,753,796\n Wood 1,263,534\n Salted fish 941,696\n Pot and pearl ash 839,093\n Salted meats 599,130\n Indigo 537,379\n Horses and mules 339,753\n Whale oil 252,591\n Flax seed 236,072\n Tar, pitch and turpentine 217,177\n Live provisions 137,743\n Ships\n Foreign goods 620,274\n\nTo descend to articles of smaller value than these, would lead into a\nminuteness of detail neither necessary nor useful to the present object.\n\nThe proportions of our exports, which go to the nations before mentioned,\nand to their dominions, respectively, are as follows:\n\n To Spain and its dominions $2,005,907\n Portugal and its dominions 1,283,462\n France and its dominions 4,698,735\n Great Britain and its dominions 9,363,416\n The United Netherlands and their dominions 1,963,880\n Denmark and its dominions 224,415\n Sweden and its dominions 47,240\n\nOur imports from the same countries, are,\n\n Spain and its dominions 335,110\n Portugal and its dominions 595,763\n France and its dominions 2,068,348\n Great Britain and its dominions 15,285,428\n United Netherlands and their dominions 1,172,692\n Denmark and its dominions 351,364\n Sweden and its dominions 14,325\n\nThese imports consist mostly of articles on which industry has been\nexhausted.\n\nOur _navigation_, depending on the same commerce, will appear by the\nfollowing statement of the tonnage of our own vessels, entering in our\nports, from those several nations and their possessions, in one year;\nthat is to say; from October, 1789, to September, 1790, inclusive, as\nfollows:\n\n Tons.\n Spain 19,695\n Portugal 23,576\n France 116,410\n Great Britain 43,580\n United Netherlands 58,858\n Denmark 14,655\n Sweden 750\n\nOf our commercial objects, Spain receives favorably our bread-stuff,\nsalted fish, wood, ships, tar, pitch, and turpentine. On our meals,\nhowever, as well as on those of other foreign countries, when re-exported\nto their colonies, they have lately imposed duties of from half-a-dollar\nto two dollars the barrel, the duties being so proportioned to the\ncurrent price of their own flour, as that both together are to make the\nconstant sum of nine dollars per barrel.\n\nThey do not discourage our rice, pot and pearl ash, salted provisions, or\nwhale oil; but these articles, being in small demand at their markets, are\ncarried thither but in a small degree. Their demand for rice, however, is\nincreasing. Neither tobacco nor indigo are received there. Our commerce\nis permitted with their Canary islands under the same conditions.\n\nThemselves, and their colonies, are the actual consumers of what they\nreceive from us.\n\nOur navigation is free with the kingdom of Spain; foreign goods being\nreceived there in our ships on the same conditions as if carried in\ntheir own, or in the vessels of the country of which such goods are the\nmanufacture or produce.\n\n_Portugal_ receives favorably our grain and bread, salted fish, and\nother salted provisions, wood, tar, pitch, and turpentine.\n\nFor flax-seed, pot and pearl ash, though not discouraged, there is little\ndemand.\n\nOur ships pay 20 per cent. on being sold to their subjects, and are then\nfree-bottoms.\n\nForeign goods (except those of the East Indies) are received on the\nsame footing in our vessels as in their own, or any others; that is to\nsay, on general duties of from 20 to 28 per cent., and, consequently,\nour navigation is unobstructed by them. Tobacco, rice, and meals, are\nprohibited.\n\nThemselves and their colonies consume what they receive from us.\n\nThese regulations extend to the Azores, Madeira, and the Cape de Verd\nislands, except that in these, meals and rice are received freely.\n\n_France_ receives favorably our bread-stuffs, rice, wood, pot and pearl\nashes.\n\nA duty of 5 sous the quintal, or nearly 4\u00bd cents, is paid on our tar,\npitch, and turpentine. Our whale oils pay 6 livres the quintal, and\nare the only foreign whale oils admitted. Our indigo pays 5 livres the\nquintal, their own 2\u00bd; but a difference of quality, still more than a\ndifference of duty, prevents its seeking that market.\n\nSalted beef is received freely for re-exportation; but if for home\nconsumption, it pays five livres the quintal. Other salted provisions\npay that duty in all cases, and salted fish is made lately to pay the\nprohibitory one of twenty livres the quintal.\n\nOur ships are free to carry thither all foreign goods which may be\ncarried in their own or any other vessels, except tobaccoes not of our\nown growth; and they participate with theirs, the exclusive carriage of\nour whale oils and tobaccoes.\n\nDuring their former government, our tobacco was under a monopoly, but paid\nno duties; and our ships were freely sold in their ports, and converted\ninto national bottoms. The first national assembly took from our ships\nthis privilege. They emancipated tobacco from its monopoly, but subjected\nit to duties of eighteen livres, fifteen sous the quintal, carried in\ntheir own vessels, and five livres carried in ours--a difference more\nthan equal to the freight of the article.\n\nThey and their colonies consume what they receive from us.\n\n_Great Britain_ receives our pot and pearl ashes free, whilst those of\nother nations pay a duty of two shillings and three pence the quintal.\nThere is an equal distinction in favor of our bar iron; of which article,\nhowever, we do not produce enough for our own use. Woods are free from\nus, whilst they pay some small duty from other countries. Indigo and flax\nseed are free from all countries. Our tar and pitch pay eleven pence,\nsterling, the barrel. From other alien countries they pay about a penny\nand a third more.\n\nOur tobacco, for their own consumption, pays one shilling and three\npence, sterling, the pound, custom and excise, besides heavy expenses\nof collection; and rice, in the same case, pays seven shillings and\nfourpence, sterling, the hundred weight; which, rendering it too dear, as\nan article of common food, it is consequently used in very small quantity.\n\nOur salted fish and other salted provisions, except bacon, are prohibited.\nBacon and whale oils are under prohibitory duties; so are our grains,\nmeals, and bread, as to internal consumption, unless in times of such\nscarcity as may raise the price of wheat to fifty shillings, sterling,\nthe quarter, and other grains and meals in proportion.\n\nOur ships, though purchased and navigated by their own subjects, are\nnot permitted to be used, even in their trade with us.\n\nWhile the vessels of other nations are secured by standing laws, which\ncannot be altered but by the concurrent will of the three branches of\nthe British legislature, in carrying thither any produce or manufacture\nof the country to which they belong, which may be lawfully carried\nin any vessels, ours, with the same prohibition of what is foreign,\nare further prohibited by a standing law, (12 Car. 2, 18, sect. 3,)\nfrom carrying thither all and any of our own domestic productions and\nmanufactures. A subsequent act, indeed, has authorized their executive\nto permit the carriage of our own productions in our own bottoms, at\nits sole discretion; and the permission has been given from year to\nyear by proclamation, but subject every moment to be withdrawn on that\nsingle will; in which event, our vessels having anything on board, stand\ninterdicted from the entry of all British ports. The disadvantage of a\ntenure which may be so suddenly discontinued, was experienced by our\nmerchants on a late occasion,[33] when an official notification that\nthis law would be strictly enforced, gave them just apprehensions for\nthe fate of their vessels and cargoes despatched or destined for the\nports of Great Britain. The minister of that court, indeed, frankly\nexpressed his personal conviction, that the words of the order went\nfarther than was intended, and so he afterwards officially informed\nus; but the embarrassments of the moment were real and great, and the\npossibility of their renewal lays our commerce to that country under\nthe same species of discouragement as to other countries, where it is\nregulated by a single legislator; and the distinction is too remarkable\nnot to be noticed, that our navigation is excluded from the security of\nfixed laws, while that security is given to the navigation of others.\n\nOur vessels pay in their ports one shilling and nine pence, sterling,\nper ton, light and trinity dues, more than is paid by British ships,\nexcept in the port of London, where they pay the same as British.\n\nThe greater part of what they receive from us, is re-exported to other\ncountries, under the useless charges of an intermediate deposit, and\ndouble voyage. From tables published in England, and composed, as is\nsaid, from the books of their customhouses, it appears, that of the indigo\nimported there in the years 1773, '4, '5, one-third was re-exported; and\nfrom a document of authority, we learn, that of the rice and tobacco\nimported there before the war, four-fifths were re-exported. We are\nassured, indeed, that the quantities sent thither for re-exportation\nsince the war, are considerably diminished, yet less so than reason and\nnational interest would dictate. The whole of our grain is re-exported\nwhen wheat is below fifty shillings the quarter, and other grains in\nproportion.\n\nThe _United Netherlands_ prohibit our pickled beef and pork, meals and\nbread of all sorts, and lay a prohibitory duty on spirits distilled from\ngrain.\n\nAll other of our productions are received on varied duties, which may\nbe reckoned, on a medium, at about three per cent.\n\nThey consume but a small proportion of what they receive. The residue\nis partly forwarded for consumption in the inland parts of Europe, and\npartly re-shipped to other maritime countries. On the latter portion\nthey intercept between us and the consumer, so much of the value as is\nabsorbed in the charges attending an intermediate deposit.\n\nForeign goods, except some East India articles, are received in vessels\nof any nation.\n\nOur ships may be sold and neutralized there, with exceptions of one or\ntwo privileges, which somewhat lessen their value.\n\n_Denmark_ lays considerable duties on our tobacco and rice, carried in\ntheir own vessels, and half as much more, if carried in ours; but the\nexact amount of these duties is not perfectly known here. They lay such\nas amount to prohibitions on our indigo and corn.\n\n_Sweden_ receives favorably our grains and meals, salted provisions,\nindigo, and whale oil.\n\nThey subject our rice to duties of sixteen mills the pound weight, carried\nin their own vessels, and of forty per cent. additional on that, or\ntwenty-two and four-tenths mills, carried in ours or any others. Being\nthus rendered too dear as an article of common food, little of it is\nconsumed with them. They consume some of our tobaccoes, which they take\ncircuitously through Great Britain, levying heavy duties on them also;\ntheir duties of entry, town duties, and excise, being 4.34 dollars the\nhundred weight, if carried in their own vessels, and of forty per cent.\non that additional, if carried in our own or any other vessels.\n\nThey prohibit altogether our bread, fish, pot and pearl ashes, flax-seed,\ntar, pitch, and turpentine, wood, (except oak timber and masts,) and\nall foreign manufactures.\n\nUnder so many restrictions and prohibitions, our navigation with them\nis reduced to almost nothing.\n\nWith our neighbors, an order of things much harder presents itself.\n\n_Spain_ and _Portugal_ refuse, to all those parts of America which\nthey govern, all direct intercourse with any people but themselves. The\ncommodities in mutual demand between them and their neighbors, must be\ncarried to be exchanged in some port of the dominant country, and the\ntransportation between that and the subject state, must be in a domestic\nbottom.\n\n_France_, by a standing law, permits her West India possessions to\nreceive directly our vegetables, live provisions, horses, wood, tar,\npitch, turpentine, rice, and maize, and prohibits our other bread\nstuff; but a suspension of this prohibition having been left to the\ncolonial legislatures, in times of scarcity, it was formerly suspended\noccasionally, but latterly without interruption.\n\nOur fish and salted provisions (except pork) are received in their islands\nunder a duty of three colonial livres the quintal, and our vessels are\nas free as their own to carry our commodities thither, and to bring away\nrum and molasses.\n\n_Great Britain_ admits in her islands our vegetables, live provisions,\nhorses, wood, tar, pitch, and turpentine, rice and bread stuff, by a\nproclamation of her executive, limited always to the term of a year, but\nhitherto renewed from year to year. She prohibits our salted fish and\nother salted provisions. She does not permit our vessels to carry thither\nour own produce. Her vessels alone may take it from us, and bring in\nexchange rum, molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa-nuts, ginger, and pimento.\nThere are, indeed, some freedoms in the island of Dominica, but, under\nsuch circumstances, as to be little used by us. In the British continental\ncolonies, and in Newfoundland, all our productions are prohibited, and\nour vessels forbidden to enter their ports. Their governors, however,\nin times of distress, have power to permit a temporary importation of\ncertain articles in their own bottoms, but not in ours.\n\nOur citizens cannot reside as merchants or factors within any of the\nBritish plantations, this being expressly prohibited by the same statute\nof 12 Car. 2, c. 18, commonly called the navigation act.\n\nIn the _Danish American_ possessions a duty of 5 per cent. is levied on\nour corn, corn meal, rice, tobacco, wood, salted fish, indigo, horses,\nmules and live stock, and of 10 per cent. on our flour, salted pork and\nbeef, tar, pitch and turpentine.\n\nIn the American islands of the _United Netherlands_ and Sweden, our\nvessels and produce are received, subject to duties, not so heavy as to\nhave been complained of; but they are heavier in the Dutch possessions\non the continent.\n\nTo sum up these restrictions, so far as they are important:\n\nFIRST. In Europe--\n\nOur bread stuff is at most times under prohibitory duties in England,\nand considerably dutied on re-exportation from Spain to her colonies.\n\nOur tobaccoes are heavily dutied in England, Sweden and France, and\nprohibited in Spain and Portugal.\n\nOur rice is heavily dutied in England and Sweden, and prohibited in\nPortugal.\n\nOur fish and salted provisions are prohibited in England, and under\nprohibitory duties in France.\n\nOur whale oils are prohibited in England and Portugal.\n\nAnd our vessels are denied naturalization in England, and of late in\nFrance.\n\nSECOND. In the West Indies--\n\nAll intercourse is prohibited with the possessions of Spain and Portugal.\n\nOur salted provisions and fish are prohibited by England.\n\nOur salted pork and bread stuff (except maize) are received under\ntemporary laws only, in the dominions of France, and our salted fish\npays there a weighty duty.\n\nTHIRD. In the article of navigation--\n\nOur own carriage of our own tobacco is heavily dutied in Sweden, and\nlately in France.\n\nWe can carry no article, not of our own production, to the British ports\nin Europe. Nor even our own produce to her American possessions.\n\nSuch being the restrictions on the commerce and navigation of the United\nStates; the question is, in what way they may best be removed, modified\nor counteracted?\n\nAs to commerce, two methods occur. 1. By friendly arrangements with\nthe several nations with whom these restrictions exist: Or, 2. By the\nseparate act of our own legislatures for countervailing their effects.\n\nThere can be no doubt but that of these two, friendly arrangement is\nthe most eligible. Instead of embarrassing commerce under piles of\nregulating laws, duties and prohibitions, could it be relieved from all\nits shackles in all parts of the world, could every country be employed\nin producing that which nature has best fitted it to produce, and each\nbe free to exchange with others mutual surplusses for mutual wants, the\ngreatest mass possible would then be produced of those things which\ncontribute to human life and human happiness; the numbers of mankind\nwould be increased, and their condition bettered.\n\nWould even a single nation begin with the United States this system\nof free commerce, it would be advisable to begin it with that nation;\nsince it is one by one only that it can be extended to all. Where the\ncircumstances of either party render it expedient to levy a revenue,\nby way of impost, on commerce, its freedom might be modified, in that\nparticular, by mutual and equivalent measures, preserving it entire in\nall others.\n\nSome nations, not yet ripe for free commerce in all its extent, might\nstill be willing to mollify its restrictions and regulations for us, in\nproportion to the advantages which an intercourse with us might offer.\nParticularly they may concur with us in reciprocating the duties to be\nlevied on each side, or in compensating any excess of duty by equivalent\nadvantages of another nature. Our commerce is certainly of a character\nto entitle it to favor in most countries. The commodities we offer are\neither necessaries of life, or materials for manufacture, or convenient\nsubjects of revenue; and we take in exchange, either manufactures, when\nthey have received the last finish of art and industry, or mere luxuries.\nSuch customers may reasonably expect welcome and friendly treatment\nat every market. Customers, too, whose demands, increasing with their\nwealth and population, must very shortly give full employment to the\nwhole industry of any nation whatever, in any line of supply they may\nget into the habit of calling for from it.\n\nBut should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better\nfind its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties and\nregulations, it behooves us to protect our citizens, their commerce and\nnavigation, by counter prohibitions, duties and regulations, also. Free\ncommerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions\nand vexations; nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them.\n\nOur navigation involves still higher considerations. As a branch of\nindustry, it is valuable, but as a resource of defence, essential.\n\nIts value, as a branch of industry, is enhanced by the dependence of\nso many other branches on it. In times of general peace it multiplies\ncompetitors for employment in transportation, and so keeps that at its\nproper level; and in times of war, that is to say, when those nations\nwho may be our principal carriers, shall be at war with each other, if\nwe have not within ourselves the means of transportation, our produce\nmust be exported in belligerent vessels, at the increased expense of\nwar-freight and insurance, and the articles which will not bear that,\nmust perish on our hands.\n\nBut it is as a resource of defence that our navigation will admit neither\nneglect nor forbearance. The position and circumstances of the United\nStates leave them nothing to fear on their land-board, and nothing to\ndesire beyond their present rights. But on their seaboard, they are open\nto injury, and they have there, too, a commerce which must be protected.\nThis can only be done by possessing a respectable body of citizen-seamen,\nand of artists and establishments in readiness for ship-building.\n\nWere the ocean, which is the common property of all, open to the industry\nof all, so that every person and vessel should be free to take employment\nwherever it could be found, the United States would certainly not set\nthe example of appropriating to themselves, exclusively, any portion of\nthe common stock of occupation. They would rely on the enterprise and\nactivity of their citizens for a due participation of the benefits of\nthe seafaring business, and for keeping the marine class of citizens\nequal to their object. But if particular nations grasp at undue shares,\nand, more especially, if they seize on the means of the United States,\nto convert them into aliment for their own strength, and withdraw them\nentirely from the support of those to whom they belong, defensive and\nprotecting measures become necessary on the part of the nation whose\nmarine resources are thus invaded; or it will be disarmed of its defence;\nits productions will lie at the mercy of the nation which has possessed\nitself exclusively of the means of carrying them, and its politics may\nbe influenced by those who command its commerce. The carriage of our own\ncommodities, if once established in another channel, cannot be resumed in\nthe moment we may desire. If we lose the seamen and artists whom it now\noccupies, we lose the present means of marine defence, and time will be\nrequisite to raise up others, when disgrace or losses shall bring home\nto our feelings the error of having abandoned them. The materials for\nmaintaining our due share of navigation, are ours in abundance. And, as\nto the mode of using them, we have only to adopt the principles of those\nwho put us on the defensive, or others equivalent and better fitted to\nour circumstances.\n\nThe following principles, being founded in reciprocity, appear perfectly\njust, and to offer no cause of complaint to any nation:\n\n1. Where a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits\nthem altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs;\nfirst burdening or excluding those productions which they bring here,\nin competition with our own of the same kind; selecting next, such\nmanufactures as we take from them in greatest quantity, and which, at\nthe same time, we could the soonest furnish to ourselves, or obtain from\nother countries; imposing on them duties lighter at first, but heavier\nand heavier afterwards, as other channels of supply open. Such duties\nhaving the effect of indirect encouragement to domestic manufactures of\nthe same kind, may induce the manufacturer to come himself into these\nStates, where cheaper subsistence, equal laws, and a vent of his wares,\nfree of duty, may ensure him the highest profits from his skill and\nindustry. And here, it would be in the power of the State governments\nto co-operate essentially, by opening the resources of encouragement\nwhich are under their control, extending them liberally to artists in\nthose particular branches of manufacture for which their soil, climate,\npopulation and other circumstances have matured them, and fostering\nthe precious efforts and progress of _household_ manufacture, by some\npatronage suited to the nature of its objects, guided by the local\ninformations they possess, and guarded against abuse by their presence\nand attentions. The oppressions on our agriculture, in foreign ports,\nwould thus be made the occasion of relieving it from a dependence on the\ncouncils and conduct of others, and of promoting arts, manufactures and\npopulation at home.\n\n2. Where a nation refuses permission to our merchants and factors to\nreside within certain parts of their dominions, we may, if it should be\nthought expedient, refuse residence to theirs in any and every part of\nours, or modify their transactions.\n\n3. Where a nation refuses to receive in our vessels any productions\nbut our own, we may refuse to receive, in theirs, any but their own\nproductions. The first and second clauses of the bill reported by the\ncommittee, are well formed to effect this object.\n\n4. Where a nation refuses to consider any vessel as ours which has\nnot been built within our territories, we should refuse to consider as\ntheirs, any vessel not built within their territories.\n\n5. Where a nation refuses to our vessels the carriage even of our own\nproductions, to certain countries under their domination, we might refuse\nto theirs of every description, the carriage of the same productions to\nthe same countries. But as justice and good neighborhood would dictate\nthat those who have no part in imposing the restriction on us, should\nnot be the victims of measures adopted to defeat its effect, it may be\nproper to confine the restriction to vessels owned or navigated by any\nsubjects of the same dominant power, other than the inhabitants of the\ncountry to which the said productions are to be carried. And to prevent\nall inconvenience to the said inhabitants, and to our own, by too sudden\na check on the means of transportation, we may continue to admit the\nvessels marked for future exclusion, on an advanced tonnage, and for\nsuch length of time only, as may be supposed necessary to provide against\nthat inconvenience.\n\nThe establishment of some of these principles by Great Britain, alone, has\nalready lost us in our commerce with that country and its possessions,\nbetween eight and nine hundred vessels of near 40,000 tons burden,\naccording to statements from official materials, in which they have\nconfidence. This involves a proportional loss of seamen, shipwrights,\nand ship-building, and is too serious a loss to admit forbearance of\nsome effectual remedy.\n\nIt is true we must expect some inconvenience in practice from the\nestablishment of discriminating duties. But in this, as in so many other\ncases, we are left to choose between two evils. These inconveniences are\nnothing when weighed against the loss of wealth and loss of force, which\nwill follow our perseverance in the plan of indiscrimination. When once\nit shall be perceived that we are either in the system or in the habit\nof giving equal advantages to those who extinguish our commerce and\nnavigation by duties and prohibitions, as to those who treat both with\nliberality and justice, liberality and justice will be converted by all\ninto duties and prohibitions. It is not to the moderation and justice\nof others we are to trust for fair and equal access to market with our\nproductions, or for our due share in the transportation of them; but\nto our own means of independence, and the firm will to use them. Nor do\nthe inconveniences of discrimination merit consideration. Not one of the\nnations before mentioned, perhaps not a commercial nation on earth, is\nwithout them. In our case one distinction alone will suffice: that is\nto say, between nations who favor our productions and navigation, and\nthose who do not favor them. One set of moderate duties, say the present\nduties, for the first, and a fixed advance on these as to some articles,\nand prohibitions as to others, for the last.\n\nStill, it must be repeated that friendly arrangements are preferable\nwith all who will come into them; and that we should carry into such\narrangements all the liberality and spirit of accommodation which the\nnature of the case will admit.\n\nFrance has, of her own accord, proposed negotiations for improving, by\na new treaty on fair and equal principles, the commercial relations of\nthe two countries. But her internal disturbances have hitherto prevented\nthe prosecution of them to effect, though we have had repeated assurances\nof a continuance of the disposition.\n\nProposals of friendly arrangement have been made on our part, by the\npresent government, to that of Great Britain, as the message states;\nbut, being already on as good a footing in law, and a better in fact,\nthan the most favored nation, they have not, as yet, discovered any\ndisposition to have it meddled with.\n\nWe have no reason to conclude that friendly arrangements would be declined\nby the other nations, with whom we have such commercial intercourse\nas may render them important. In the meanwhile, it would rest with the\nwisdom of Congress to determine whether, as to those nations, they will\nnot surcease _ex parte_ regulations, on the reasonable presumption that\nthey will concur in doing whatever justice and moderation dictate should\nbe done.\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n [33] April 12, 1792.\n\n\nXLI.--_Report on the Mint. Communicated to the Senate, December 31, 1793._\n\n PHILADELPHIA, December 30, 1793.\n\nSIR,--I am informed, by the Director of the Mint, that an impediment\nhas arisen to the coinage of the precious metals, which it is my duty\nto lay before you.\n\nIt will be recollected, that, in pursuance of the authority vested in the\nPresident, by Congress, to procure artists from abroad, if necessary, Mr.\nDrost, at Paris, so well known by the superior style of his coinage, was\nengaged for our mint; but that, after occasioning to us a considerable\ndelay, he declined coming. That thereupon, our minister at London,\naccording to the instructions he had received, endeavored to procure,\nthere, a chief coiner and assayer; that, as to the latter, he succeeded\nin sending over a Mr. Albion Coxe, for that office, but that he could\nprocure no person there more qualified to discharge the duties of chief\ncoiner, than might be had here; and, therefore, did not engage one. The\nduties of this last office have consequently been, hitherto, performed,\nand well performed, by Henry Voight, an artist of the United States,\nbut the law requiring these officers to give a security, in the sum\nof ten thousand dollars each, neither is able to do it. The coinage of\nthe precious metals has, therefore, been prevented for some time past,\nthough, in order that the mint might not be entirely idle, the coinage\nof copper has been going on; the trust in that, at any one point of\ntime, being of but small amount.\n\nIt now remains to determine how this difficulty is to be got over. If by\ndischarging these officers, and seeking others, it may well be doubted\nif any can be found in the United States, equally capable of fulfilling\ntheir duties; and to seek them from abroad, would still add to the\ndelay; and if found either at home or abroad, they must still be of the\ndescription of artists whose circumstances and connections rarely enable\nthem to give security in so large a sum. The other alternative would\nbe to lessen the securityship in money, and to confide that it will be\nsupplied by the vigilance of the director, who, leaving as small masses\nof metal in the hands of the officers, at any one time, as the course\nof their process will admit, may reduce the risk to what would not be\nconsiderable.\n\nTo give an idea of the extent of the trust to the several officers, both\nas to sum and time, it may be proper to state the course of the business,\naccording to what the director is of opinion it should be. The treasurer,\nhe observes, should receive the bullion; the assayer, by an operation on\na few grains of it, is to ascertain its fineness. The treasurer is then\nto deliver it to the refiner, to be melted and mixed to the standard\nfineness; the assayer here, again, examining a few grains of the melted\nmass, and certifying when it is of due fineness; the refiner then delivers\nit to the chief coiner, to be rolled and coined, and returns it, when\ncoined, to the treasurer. By this it appears, that a few grains only,\nat a time, are in the hands of the assayer, the mass being confided,\nfor operation, to the refiner and chief coiner. It is to be observed\nthat the law has not taken notice of the office of refiner, though so\nimportant an officer ought, it should seem, to be of the President's\nnomination, and ought to give a security nearly equal to that required\nfrom the chief coiner.\n\nI have thought it my duty to give this information under an impression\nthat it is proper to be communicated to the Legislature, who will decide,\nin their wisdom, whether it will be expedient to make it the duty of\nthe treasurer to receive and keep the bullion before coinage;\n\nTo lessen the pecuniary security required from the chief coiner and\nassayer; and\n\nTo place the office of the refiner under the same nomination with that\nof the other chief officers; to fix his salary, and require due security.\n\nI have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect and attachment,\nsir, your most obedient and most humble servant.\n\n\n\n\nEND OF VOL. VII.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX TO VOL. VII.\n\n\n ADAMS, JOHN--His estimate of life, 30.\n His reading, 59, 69.\n His religious opinions, 59, 68, 219, 280.\n Calumnies of Pickering against, 58, 62.\n His views of metaphysics, 71.\n His views of Bonaparte, 71.\n Letter of condolence to, from Mr. Jefferson, 107.\n Oldest signer of the Declaration of Independence, 218, 219.\n\n ADAMS, J. Q.--Made Secretary of State, 85.\n\n ALEXANDER, EMPEROR--His character and views, 20.\n\n ADVICE--Letter of, 401.\n\n ANATOMY--Experiments in, 388.\n\n ANGLO SAXON--The language, 416.\n\n APOCALYPSE, THE--View of, 394.\n\n ASTRONOMY--New method of finding longitude, 223, 226.\n\n\n BANKS--Evils of the Banking system, 64, 111, 115.\n Suspension of, 142.\n Distress resulting therefrom, 151.\n Jefferson's plan for reducing circulating medium, 146.\n\n BARBARY STATES--Their piracies, 250.\n Efforts to redeem Algerine prisoners, 532.\n\n BOLINGBROKE, LORD--His writings, 197.\n\n BONAPARTE--His character, 275.\n\n BOOKS--Should be imported free of duty, 220.\n\n\n CAMPBELL, COL.--Hero of King's Mountain, 268.\n\n CAPITOL--Whether there should be any inscription on new one, 41.\n\n CHEMISTRY--Progress of, 259.\n\n CINCINNATI SOCIETY--History of, 368.\n\n CLASSICS--The study of, 131.\n\n CLIMATE--Of western country, 375.\n\n COINAGE--Report on copper coinage, 462.\n Report on coins, weights and measures, 472.\n\n COLONIZATION OF NEGROES--Views on, 332.\n\n COMMERCE--Treaties with European powers, 436.\n Our Mediterranean trade, 519.\n Restriction and privileges of our foreign commerce, 636.\n Free Trade, how far practicable, 646.\n\n COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE--Origin of, 120.\n\n COMPENSATION LAW--Unpopularity of, 78.\n\n CONGRESS--Whether it has a right to adjourn to a new place of\n meeting without consent of President, 495.\n\n CONSOLIDATION--Dangers of, 223, 293, 430.\n Rapid strides towards, 426, 430.\n\n CONSTITUTION--Rules for interpreting, 296, 336, 342, 358.\n Distribution of powers between State and Federal governments, 297,\n 358.\n Who the final arbiter between State and Federal governments, 298,\n 358.\n Should be easily amendable, 323, 336.\n Similarity of Constitutions of different States, 323.\n\n COURTS, COUNTY--Magistrates of, should be elected by the people, 12,\n 18.\n\n CUBA--Should not be allowed to pass to England, 288, 299.\n People of, how affected, 299.\n Should belong to the U. States, 316.\n\n\n DAVID, KING--His description of a good man, 337.\n\n DEBT, FOREIGN--How it should be managed, 506.\n\n DRAWBACKS--Should be repealed, 6.\n\n\n EDUCATION--General plan of, 98, 187, 322, 398.\n Female education, 101.\n Northern teachers and professors, 187.\n Common school system of Virginia a failure, 256.\n\n ELOQUENCE--Models of, 231.\n\n EMBARGO--Circumstances under which, resorted to, 373.\n Circumstances which led to its repeal, 425, 431.\n Treasonable conduct of Massachusetts in relation to, 425, 431.\n\n ENGLAND--Feeling of towards U. States, 42, 519.\n Debt of, 43.\n Condition and prospects of, 45, 48, 232.\n Constitution of, 48.\n Parties in, 50.\n Discontents in, 196.\n Origin of her constitution, 355.\n Effects of Norman conquest, 413.\n Indemnity for slaves carried off by, during Revolutionary war, 518.\n Commercial relations of, with United States, 518.\n\n EUROPE--Condition of, 182, 193, 217, 244, 288.\n Revolutions in, 307.\n\n EXPATRIATION--Exists as a natural right, 72.\n\n\n FRANCE--Condition of, 66, 76.\n Return to, of Louis XVIII., 82.\n Constitution of, 86.\n Allied powers depart, 109.\n Her revolution, 302.\n Her progress in science, 323.\n Whether our treaties with, remain Obligatory after her revolution,\n 611.\n Not allowed to equip privateers in our ports, 226.\n\n FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN--Calumnies against, 108.\n\n FISHERIES--Report on Cod fisheries, 588.\n History of Cod fisheries, 538.\n History of whale fisheries, 544.\n\n\n GENERATIONS--One has no right to bind another, 16, 19, 311, 359.\n\n GOVERNMENT--Views on, 3, 263, 307, 318, 357.\n Should reflect will of people in all its departments, 9, 319.\n Is progressive, 15.\n Should be remodelled from time to time, 14, 19.\n Principle of representation, 32.\n Must be adapted to each particular people, 56.\n Majority must govern, 75.\n Europe cannot bear republican government, 325.\n\n GREEK--Pronunciation of, 112, 137.\n The ablative case in, 272, 340.\n\n GRIEF--Its uses and abuses, 33, 37.\n\n\n HAMILTON, A.--His monarchical principles, 389.\n\n HISTORY--Course of, indicated for University of Virginia, 412.\n\n\n IMPROVEMENT, INTERNAL--Progress of, 75, 422.\n Power of, does not belong to federal government, 79.\n\n INDEPENDENCE, DECLARATION OF--Its history, 122, 304.\n Jefferson's opinion of Mecklenburg Declaration, 128.\n Authorship of, 407.\n Original rough draft of, 409.\n The house in which written, 410.\n Celebration of 50th anniversary of, 450.\n\n INDIANS--Their language, 96, 400.\n Plan for civilizing, 233.\n The right to extinguish Indian titles belongs to federal and\n not State governments, 467.\n\n\n JAY, JOHN--Why he did not sign Declaration of Independence, 308.\n\n JEFFERSON, THOMAS--His estimate of life, 25, 421.\n Decay of his faculties, 52, 179, 327.\n Resigned to death, 52, 243.\n Oppressed by correspondence, 54, 254.\n His occupations in his old age, 111, 116.\n His habits of life, 116.\n Materials for his biography, 117.\n Application for his portrait, 203.\n Complains of publication of his letters, 222.\n Settlements of his accounts on his return from France, 239, 246.\n His relations with J. Adams, 314.\n Calumnies of Pickering, 362.\n His relations with Washington unaffected by the Mazzei letter,\n 364.\n Their friendship uninterrupted to the last, 370.\n His losses by security debt, 433.\n\n JUDICIARY, FEDERAL--Decisions of, do not bind other departments\n of the government, 134, 177.\n Each department decides for itself, 134, 177.\n Danger to our system from encroachments of, 192, 199, 216,\n 256, 278, 293, 321, 403.\n\n\n KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS--Drawn by Jefferson, 229.\n\n KOSCIUSKO--His will, 98.\n His services to United States, 106.\n\n\n LA FAYETTE--His visit to United States, 378, 379.\n\n LANDS, PUBLIC--Settlements on, 83.\n\n LANGDON, GOVERNOR--His relations with Jefferson, 154.\n\n LANGUAGE--Is progressive, 174, 418.\n\n LAW--Course of reading in, 207.\n Common law no part of law of United States, 251.\n Christianity no part of common law, 359.\n Origin of common law, 381.\n\n LAW, INTERNATIONAL--Principle of free ships make free goods &c.,\n not law of nations, 270.\n\n LEE, R. H.--Biography of, 422.\n\n LEWIS AND CLARKE--Journal of their expedition, 91.\n\n LIVINGSTON, E.--His code, 383, 483.\n\n LOAN--Proposition for new loan, 629.\n\n LOTTERIES--Jefferson applies for leave to sell his property by\n lottery, 434.\n\n LOUISIANA--Boundaries of, 51.\n\n\n MANUFACTURES--Whether a mark should be secured to each by law, 563.\n\n MATERIALISM--Views on, 153, 175.\n\n MAZZEI LETTER--History and explanation of, 364.\n\n METAPHYSICS--Views on, 153, 175.\n\n MINISTERS--Senate has no right to negative the _grade_ of a\n minister, it can only negative the _person_ appointed by\n the Executive, 465.\n\n MISSIONS, RELIGIOUS--To foreign States objectionable, 287.\n\n MINT--The coiner at the mint unable to give security, 651.\n\n MISSISSIPPI RIVER--Our right to navigate, 568.\n\n MISSOURI QUESTION--150, 151, 194, 200.\n Evil of a geographical line, 151, 158, 159, 180, 182, 194.\n\n MONROE, JAMES--His election to Presidency, 80.\n\n\n NAVY--Origin of navy of United States, 261, 264.\n\n NEUTRALITY--A neutral nation may refuse belligerents right to\n pass through its territory, 509.\n\n NOVELS--Evil of, 102.\n\n\n OFFICES--Rotation in, 190.\n\n OPTICS--Views on, suggested, 258.\n\n ORATORY--Defects of modern, 347.\n\n\n PAINE, THOMAS--His writings, 197.\n\n PARTIES--History of, in U. S., 277, 290.\n Original views of federal and republican, 290.\n Republican party becomes federalized, 325, 342.\n Necessity of, 376.\n A strong monarchical party at the beginning of our government,\n 390.\n\n POSTS, NORTH-WESTERN--England refuses to surrender, 518.\n\n\n QUAKERS--Character of, 66.\n\n\n RANDOLPH, PEYTON--Character of, 20.\n\n RELIGION--Jefferson's views on, 28, 61, 127, 164, 170, 185, 210,\n 245, 252, 257, 266, 269, 281.\n System of Jesus compared with ancient philosophers, 138, 156,\n 164, 185.\n Jesus as a reformer, 164.\n Modern fanaticism, 170.\n Religious intolerance, 396.\n\n REPRESENTATION--Bill apportioning, 594.\n\n REVOLUTION, THE--Who begun it, 99, 103, 121.\n Circumstances attending Declaration of Independence, 122.\n\n REVOLUTIONARY DEBT--Those due soldiers of North Carolina and\n Virginia should be paid to themselves and not their assignees,\n 469.\n\n ROMAN PEOPLE AND CONSTITUTION--148, 150.\n\n\n SCIENCES--Distribution of, 339.\n Progress of France in, 327.\n\n SLAVES--Not entitled to be represented, 36.\n Emancipation of, 58, 310.\n Amelioration of condition of, 403, 437.\n Re-capture of slaves escaped to Florida, 601.\n\n SOCIETY--Its progress, 377.\n\n SOUTH AMERICAN PROVINCES--Incapable of self-government, 67, 75,\n 104, 210.\n\n SPAIN--Treaty with, rejected, 160.\n\n\n TAYLOR, JOHN--Jefferson's opinion of his \"constitution\n construed,\" 213, 216.\n\n TRACY, DESTUTT--His works, 38, 55.\n\n\n UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA--Organization of, 81, 161, 173, 196,\n 329, 392, 441.\n Religious objections to appointment of Dr. Cooper in, 156,\n 162, 171.\n Difficulties surrounding, 201, 204, 237, 392.\n Necessity for a southern University, 205.\n Arrangement for religious worship, 267.\n Students allowed to select tickets, 300.\n Difficulties of discipline, 301.\n Progress of, 309.\n Selection of professors for, 348.\n Inculcation of federal doctrines in, should be guarded\n against, 397.\n Necessity for an Anatomical Hall, 393, 398.\n Appointment of foreign professors, 415.\n Library of, 432.\n Establishment of school of Botany, 438, 441.\n\n UNITED STATES--True policy of, 6.\n Animosity to England growing out of last war, 22.\n Relations of, with European powers, 288.\n Relations of, with England, 22.\n Danger of dissolution of Union, 182.\n Should disconnect their policy from that of Europe, 183, 315.\n Dangers which threaten them, 211, 214.\n\n\n VANDER KEMP--History of, 29.\n\n VIRGINIA--Programme of new constitution for, 9.\n Arnold's invasion of, 144, 444.\n Historical documents of, 312.\n Her first constitution, 344.\n Defects in, 315.\n Authorship of bill of rights, constitution of, 405, 407.\n\n\n WAR--Benefits of the last war, 66.\n\n WARDS--Counties should be divided into, 35.\n\n WASHINGTON, GEN.--Authorship of Farewell Address, 291.\n No unkind feeling between him and Jefferson on account of\n Mazzei letter, 364.\n Forms and ceremonies adopted during his administration, 367.\n He was a true republican, 371.\n\n WASHINGTON CITY--Locating of, 512, 561.\n\n WATER--Report on methods of obtaining fresh water from salt, 455.\n\n WEIGHTS AND MEASURES--A standard of, 87.\n Report on, 472.\n\n WHISKEY--Evils of its cheapness, 285.\n\n WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE--Its foundation, 328.\n Proposition to consolidate it with University, 350, 384.\n Its charter is under the power of the legislature, 350, 384.\n\n WINES--Use of beneficial, 110.","title":"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 7 (of 9): Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":239830}