Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

practice of Europe, in proof that the principle of "free bottoms, free goods," was not acknowledged as of the natural law of nations, but only of it's conventional law. And I believe we may safely affirm, that not a single instance can be produced where any nation of Europe, acting professedly under the law of nations alone, unrestrained by treaty, has, either by it's executive or judiciary organs, decided on the principle of "free bottoms, free goods." Judging of the law of nations by what has been practised among nations, we were authorized to say that the contrary principle was their rule, and this but an exception to it, introduced by special treaties in special cases only; that having no treaty with England substituting this instead of the ordinary rule, we had neither the right nor the disposition to go to war for it's establishment. But though we would not then, nor will we now, engage in war to establish this principle, we are nevertheless sincerely friendly to it. We think that the nations of Europe have originally set out in error; that experience has proved the error oppressive to the rights and interests of the peaceable part of mankind; that every nation but one has acknoleged this, by consenting to the change, & that one has consented in particular cases; that nations have a right to correct an erroneous principle, & to establish that which is right as their rule of action; and if they should adopt measures for effecting this in a peaceable way, we shall wish them success, and not stand in their way to it. But should it become, at any time, expedient for us to co-operate in the establishment of this principle, the opinion of the executive, on the advice of it's constitutional counsellors, must then be given; & that of the legislature, an independent & essential organ in the operation, must also be expressed; in forming which, they will be governed, every man by his own judgment, and may, very possibly, judge differently from the executive. With the same honest views, the most honest men often form different conclusions. As far, however, as we can judge, the principle of "free bottoms, free goods," is that which would carry the wishes of our nation.

Wishing you smooth seas and prosperous gales, with the enjoyment of good health, I tender you the assurances of my constant friendship & high consideration and respect.

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

J. MSS..

(JAMES MADISON.)

MONTICELLO, Sept. 12, 1801.

DEAR SIR,-Yours of yesterday was delivered by your express about five o'clock in the evening. My occupations for the departing post have prevented my answering instantly.

No commission nor letter of credence was signed for Mr. Livingston before we left Washington. I think the Boston has not yet left Boston for New York. I presume therefore that we can sign those papers in time after our return to Washington. I suspect on view of Murray's letters that the real obstacle to the ratification is nothing more than a desire to obtain an express renunciation of the demand of indemnities. If this be the case it will probably be ratified on that condition. On the established principle that everything is abandoned which is not provided for in a treaty of peace, the express abandonment would not be necessary if the 2d article is expunged. Suppose we were to instruct Livingston in case he finds on arrival in Paris that the ratification is withheld, that he propose the single article for the restitution of prizes, and say to them that with every disposition towards them of perfect friendliness and free commerce we are willing to trust, without a treaty to the mutual interests of the two countries for dictating the terms of our commercial relations, not doubting that each will give the best terms in practice to the other, that on the expiration of the British treaty we shall probably do the same with that nation and so with others. Unless indeed events should render it practicable to sign a short formula merely explanatory or amendatory of the L. of Nations in a few special articles. The being in freedom to refuse entrance in time of war to armed ships, or prizes, to refuse or send off ministers and consuls in time of war, is a most desirable situation in my judgment. I wonder to see such an arrearage from the Department of State to our bankers in Holland. Our predecessors seem to have levied immense sums from their constituents merelyTM to feed favorites by large advances, and thus to purchase by corruption an extension of their influence and power. Their just debts appear to have been left in the background. I understood.

that the advance to Genl. Lloyd was to relieve his distress, and the contract a mere cover for letting him have the benefit of the 5,000 D. What would you thing of agreeing to annul the contract on his previous actual reimbursement of the money? I think we may conclude with tolerable certainty that the Tripolitans had not taken any of our vessels before Dale's arrival at Gibraltar. What a pity he did not know of the war, that he might have taken their admiral and his ship.

Mr. Church does not exactly ask for a restoration of his consulship at Lisbon: But I am inclined to think it the very best step we can take. However this may be a subject of conversation when we meet. I am happy to hear your complaint has been so slight. I hope the great change in the weather since last night will secure us against the return of any more very hot weather. My respects to the ladies, and sincere and affectionate esteem to yourself.

P. S. All the papers are returned except Davis' letter recommending a collector for the Ohio district.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

(ALBERT GALLATIN.)

J. MSS.

MONTICELLO, September 18, 1801.

DEAR SIR.-* With respect to Gardner and Campbell, I must leave them to yourself. I think we are bound to take care of them. Could we not procure them as good births as their former at least, in some of the custom-houses? One part of the subject of one of your letters is of a nature which forbids my interference altogether. The amendment to the Constitution, of which you speak, would be a remedy to a certain degree. So will a different amendment which I know will be proposed, to wit, to have no electors, but let the people vote directly, and the ticket which has a plurality of the votes of any State to be considered as receiving thereby the whole vote of the State. Our motions with respect to Livingston are easily explained it was impossible for him to go off in the instant he was named, or on

shorter warning than two or three months. In the meantime Bingham and others, mercantile men, complained in Congress that we were losing so many thousand dollars every day till the ratification of the treaty. A vessel to carry it was prepared by our predecessors, and all the preparatory expenses of her mission incurred. This is the reason why Mr. L. did not go then. The reason why he must go now is that difficulties have arisen unexpectedly in the ratification of the treaty, which we believe him more capable of getting over than Mr. Murray. We think that the state of the treaty there calls for the presence of a person of talents and confidence; we would rather trust him than Murray in shaping any new modification.

I sincerely congratulate you on the better health of your son, as well as the new addition to your family, and Mrs. Gallatin's convalescence. I consider it as a trying experiment for a person from the mountains to pass the two bilious months on the tide-water. I have not done it these forty-years, and nothing should induce me to do it. As it is not possible but that the Administration must take some portion of time for their own affairs, I think it best they should select that season for absence. General Washington set the example of those two months; Mr. Adams extended them to eight months. I should not suppose our bringing it back to two months a ground for grumbling, but, grumble who will, I will never pass those two months on tidewater. Accept assurances of my constant and sincere esteem and respect.

DEAR SIR,

TO WILLIAM SHORT.

J. MSS.
WASHINGTON, October 3, 1801.
I trusted to Mr. Dawson to

give you a full explanation, verbally, on a subject which I find he has but slightly mentioned to you. I shall therefore now do it. When I returned from France, after an absence of 6. or 7. years, I was astonished at the change which I found had taken place in the US in that time. No more like the

same people; their notions, their habits & manners, the course of their commerce, so totally changed, that I, who stood in those of 1784, found myself not at all qualified to speak their sentiments, or forward their views in 1790. Very soon, therefore, after entering on the office of Sec. of State, I recommended to Gen. Washington to establish as a rule of practice, that no person should be continued on foreign mission beyond an absence of 6., 7., or 8. years. He approved it. On the only subsequent missions which took place in my time, the persons appointed were notified that they could not be continued beyond that period. All returned within it except Humphreys. His term was not quite out when Gen. Washington went out of office. The succeeding administration had no rule for anything; so he continued. Immediately on my coming to the administration, I wrote to him myself, reminded him of the rule I had communicated to him on his departure; that he had then been absent about 11. years, and consequently must return. On this ground solely he was superseded. Under these circumstances, your appointment was impossible after an absence of 17. years. Under any

others, I should never fail to give to yourself & the world proofs of my friendship for you, & of my confidence in you. Whenever you shall return, you will be sensible in a greater, of what I was in a smaller degree, of the change in this nation from what it was when we both left it in 1784. We return like foreign-ers, &, like them, require a considerable residence: here to become Americanized.

« PředchozíPokračovat »