The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives
of the United States, the petition of Jacob Isaacs of Newport in Rhode Island,
has examined into the truth and importance of the allegations therein set
forth, and makes thereon the following report:

   The petitioner sets forth, that by various experiments, with considerable
labor and expense, he has discovered a method of converting salt-water into
fresh, in the proportion of 8 parts out of 10, by a process so simple that it
may be performed on board of vessels at sea by the common iron caboose, with
small alterations, by the same fire, and in the same time, which is used for
cooking the ship's provisions, and offers to convey to the government of the
United States a faithful account of his art or secret,

   In order to ascertain the merit of the petitioner's discovery, it becomes
necessary to examine the advances already made in the art of converting
saltwater into fresh.

   Lord Bacon, to whom the world is indebted for the first germs of so many
branches of science, had observed, that with a heat sufficient for
distillation, salt will not rise in vapor, and that salt-water distilled is
fresh; and it would seem, that all mankind might have observed that the earth
is supplied with fresh water chiefly by exhalation from the sea, which is, in
fact, an insensible distillation effected by the heat of the sun; yet this,
although the most obvious, was not the first idea in the essays for converting
salt-water into fresh; filtration was tried in vain; and congelation could be
resorted to only in the coldest regions and seasons. In all the earlier trials
by distillation, some mixture was thought necessary to aid the operation by a
partial precipitation of the salt, and other foreign matters contained in
seawater. Of this kind, were the methods of Sir Richard Hawkins in the
sixteenth century, of Glauber, Hauton, and Lister, in the seventeenth, and of
Hales, Appleby, Butler, Chapman, Hoffman, and Dore, in the eighteenth; nor was
there anything in

   In 1762, Doctor Lind, proposing to make experiment of several different
mixtures, first distilled rain-water, which he supposed would be the purest,
and then sea-water, without any mixture, which he expected would be the least
pure, in order to arrange between these two supposed extremes, the degree of
merit of the several ingredients he meant to try; "to his great surprise," as
he confesses, the sea-water distilled without any mixture, was as pure as the
rainwater; he pursued the discovery and established the fact, that a pure and
potable fresh water may be obtained from salt-water by simple distillation,
without the aid of any mixture for fining or precipitating

   In 1771, Dr. Irvin putting together Lind's idea of distilling without a
mixture, Chapman's still, and Dr. Franklin's method of cooling by evaporation,
obtained a premium of five thousand pounds from the British parliament. He wet
his tube constantly with a mop instead of passing it through a cask of

   M. de Bougainville, in his voyage round the world, used very successfully a
still which had been contrived in 1763 by Poyssonier to guard against the water
being thrown over from the boiler into the pipe, by the agitation of the ship.
In this, one singularity was, that the furnace or fire-box was in the middle of
the boiler, so that the water surrounded it in contact. This still, however,
was expensive, and occupied much room.

   Such were the advances already made in the art of obtaining fresh from
salt-water, when Mr. Isaacs, the petitioner, suggested his discovery. As the
merit of this could be ascertained by experiment only, the Secretary of State
asked the favor of Mr. Rittenhouse, President of the American Philosophic al
Society, of Dr. Wistar, professor of chemistry in the college at Philadelphia,
and Dr. Hutchinson, professor of chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania,

   In a second experiment of the 21st of March, performed in a furnace, and
five-gallon still at the college, from 32 pints of sea-water he drew 31 pints
of fresh water in 7 hours and 24 minutes, with 51 lbs. of hickory, which had
been cut about six months. In order to decide whether Mr. Isaacs' mixture
contributed in any and what degree to the success of the operation, it was
thought proper to repeat his experiment under the same circumstances exactly,
except the omission of the mixture. Accordingly, on the next day, the same
quantity of sea-water was put into the same still, the same furnace was used,
and fuel from the same parcel; it yielded, as his had done, 31 pints fresh
water in 11 minutes more of time, and with 10 lbs. less of wood.

   On the 24th of March, Mr. Isaacs performed a third experiment. For this, a
common iron pot of three and a half gallons was fixed in brick work, and the
flue from the hearth wound once around this pot spirally, and then passed off
up a chimney.

   The cap was of tin, and a straight tin tube of about two inches diameter
passing obliquely through a barrel of water, served instead of a worm. From
sixteen pints of sea-water he drew off fifteen pints of fresh water, in two
hours fifty-five minutes, with 3 lbs. of dry hickory and 8 lbs. of seasoned
pine. This experiment was also repeated the next day, with the same apparatus,
and fuel from the same parcel; but without the mixture, sixteen pints of
sea-water yielded in like manner fifteen pints of fresh in one minute more of
time, and with « lb. less of wood On the whole, it was evident that Mr. Isaacs'
mixture produced no advantage either in the process or result of the
distillation.

   The distilled water in all these instances, was found on experiment to be as
pure as the best pump water of the city; its taste, indeed, was not as
agreeable, but it was not such as to produce any disgust. In fact, we drink, in
common life, in many places, and under many circumstances, and almost always
at sea, a worse tasting and probably a less wholesome water.

   The obtaining fresh from salt-water was for ages considered as an important
desideratum for the use of navigators. The process for doing this by simple
distillation is so efficacious, the erecting an extempore still with such
utensils as are found on board of every ship, is so practicable, as to
authorize the assertion that this desideratum is satisfied to a very useful
degree. But though this has been done for

   The House of Delegates of Virginia seemed disposed to adventure £2,500 for the
encouragement of this undertaking, but the Senate did not concur. By their
returning to the subject, however, at a subsequent session, and wishing more
specific propositions, it is probable they might be induced to concur, if they
saw a certain provision that their money would not be paid for nothing. Some
unsuccessful experiments heretofore may have suggested this caution.

   Suppose the propositions brought into some such shape as this: The undertaker
is to contribute £1,000, the State £2,500, viz.: the undertaker having laid out
his £1,000 in the necessary implements to be brought from Europe, and these
being landed in Virginia as a security that he will proceed,

   To every workman whom he shall import, let them give, after he shall have
worked in the manufactory five years, warrants for acres of land, and pay the
expenses of survey, patents, &c. [This last article is to meet the proposition
of the undertaker . I do not like it, because it tends to draw off the
manufactur er from his trade. I should better like a premium to him on his
continuance in it; as, for instance, that he should be free from State taxes
as long as he should carry on his trade.]

   The President's intervention seems necessary till the contracts shall be
concluded. It is presumed he would not like to be embarrassed afterwards with
the details of superintendence. Suppose, in his answer to the Governor of
Virginia, he should say that the undertaker being in Europe, more specific
propositions cannot be obtained from him in time to be laid before this
assembly; that in order to secure to the State the benefits of the establishment, and yet guard the
against an unproductive grant of money, he thinks some
plan like the preceding one might be proposed to the undertaker .

   That as it is not known whether he would accept it exactly in that form, it
might disappoint the views of the State were they to prescribe that or any
other form rigorously, consequently that a discretionary power must be given
to a certain extent.

   That he would willingly cooperate with their executive in effecting the
contract, and certainly would not conclude it on any terms worse for the State

   May 3d, 1790. The State of Georgia, having granted to certain individuals a
tract of country, within their chartered limits, whereof the Indian right has
never yet been acquired; with a proviso in the grants, which implies that those
individuals may take measures for extinguishing the Indian rights under the
authority of that Government, it becomes a question how far this grant is
good?

    A society, taking possession of a vacant country, and declaring they mean to
occupy it, does thereby

   If the country, instead of being altogether vacant, is thinly occupied by
another nation, the right of the native forms an exception to that of the new
comers; that is to say, these will only have a right against all other nations
except the natives. Consequently, they have the exclusive privilege of
acquiring the native right by purchase or other just means. This is called the
right of preemption, and is become a principle of the law of nations,
fundamental with respect to America. There are but two means of acquiring the
native title. First, war; for even war may, sometimes, give a just title.
Second, contracts or treaty.
The States of America before their present union possessed completely, each
within its own limits, the exclusive right to use these two means of acquiring
the native title, and, by their act of union, they have as completely ceded
both to the general government. Art. 2d, Section 1st, "The President shall
have power, by and with the advice of the Senate, to make treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur." Art. 1st, Section 8th, "The
Congress shall have power to declare war, to raise and support armies." Section
10th, "No State shall

   These paragraphs of the Constitution, declaring that the general government
shall have, and that the particular ones shall not have, the right of war and
treaty, are so explicit that no commentary can explain them further, nor can
any explain them away. Consequently, Georgia, possessing the exclusive right
to acquire the native title, but having relinquished the means of doing it to
the general government, can only have put her grantee into her own condition.
She could convey to them the exclusive right to acquire; but she could not
convey what she had not herself, that is, the means of acquiring.

   For these they must come to the general government, in whose hands they have
been wisely deposited for the purposes both of peace and justice.

   What is to be done? The right of the general government is, in my opinion, to
be maintained. The case is sound, and the means of doing it as practicable as
can ever occur. But respect and friendship should, I think, mark the conduct of
the general towards the particular government, and explanations should be
asked and time and color given them to tread back their steps before coercion
is held up to their view.

   I am told there is already a strong party in Georgia opposed to the act of
their government.

   I should think it better then that the first measures, while firm, be yet so
temperate as to secure their alliance and aid to the general government.

   Might not the eclat of a proclamation revolt their pride and passion, and throw
them hastily into the opposite scale? It will be proper indeed to require from
the government of Georgia, in the first moment, that while the general
government shall be expecting and considering her explanations, things
shall remain in statu quo, and not a move be made towards carrying what they
have begun into execution.

   Perhaps it might not be superfluous to send some person to the Indians
interested, to explain to them the views of government, and to watch with
their aid the territory in question.

   June 3d, 1790. The accounts of the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina,
having been examined by the proper officer of government, the balances due to
each individual.

   The legislature, to defeat this fraud, passed resolutions on the 21st of May,
1790, directing that where payment had not been made to the original claimant
in person or his representatives, it shall be made to him or them personally,
or to their attorney, producing a power for that purpose, attested by two
justices of the county where he resides, and specifying the certain sum he is
to receive.

   It has been objected to these resolutions that they annul transfers of property
which were good by the laws under which they were made; that they take from the
assignees their lawful property; are contrary to the principles of the
constitution, which condemn retrospective laws; and are, therefore, not
worthy of the President's approbation.

   I agree in an almost unlimited condemnation of retrospective laws. The few
instances of wrong which they redress are so overweighed by the insecurity
they draw over all property and even over life itself, and by the atrocious
violations of both to which they lead that it is better to live under the evil
than the remedy.

   The only question I shall make is, whether these resolutions annul acts which
were valid when they were done?
This question respects the laws of Virginia and North Carolina only. On the
latter I am not qualified to decide, and therefore beg leave to confine myself
to the former.

   By the common law of England (adopted in Virginia) the conveyance of a right to
a debt or other thing whereof the party is not in possession, is not only void,
but severely punishable under the names of Maintenance and Champerty. The
Law-merchants, however, which is permitted to have course between merchants,
allows the assignment of a bill of exchange for the convenience of commerce.
This, therefore, forms one exception to the general rule, that a mere right or
thing in action is not assignable. A second exception has been formed by an
English statute (copied into the laws of Virginia) permitting promissory notes
to be assigned. The laws of Virginia have gone yet further than the statute,
and have allowed, as a third exception, that a bond should be assigned, which
cannot be done even at this day in England. So that, in Virginia, when a debt
has been settled between the parties and put into the form of a bill of
exchange, promissory note or bond, the law admits it to be transferred by
assignment . In all other cases the assignment of a debt is void.

   The debts from the United States to the soldiers

   A creditor may give an order on his debtor in favor of another, but if the
debtor does not accept it, he must be sued in the creditor's name; which shows
that the order does not transfer the property of the debts. The creditor may
appoint another to be his attorney to receive and recover his debt, and he may
covenant that when received the attorney may apply it to his own use. But he
must sue as attorney to the original proprietor, and not in his own right.

   This proves that a power of attorney, with such a covenant, does not transfer
the property of the debt. A further proof in both cases is, that the original
creditor may at any time before payment or acceptance revoke either his order
or his power of attorney.

   In that event the person in whose favor they were given has recourse to a court
of equity. When there, the judge examines whether he has done equity. If he
finds his transaction has been a fair one, he gives him aid. If he finds it has
been otherwise, not permitting his court to be made a handmaid to fraud, he
leaves him without remedy in equity as he was in law. The assignments in the
present case, therefore, if unfairly obtained, as seems to be admitted, are
void in equity as they are in law. And they derive their nullity from the laws
under which they were made, not from the new resolutions of Congress. These are
not retrospective. They only direct their

   Government seems to be doing in this what every individual, I think, would
feel himself bound to do in the case of his own debt. For, being free in the
law, to pay to the one or the other, he would certainly give the advantage to
the party who has suffered wrong rather than to him who has committed it.

   It is not honorable to take a mere legal advantage, when it happens to be
contrary to justice.

   But it is honorable to embrace a salutary principle of law when a relinquishment of it is solicite
only to support a fraud.

   I think the resolutions, therefore, merit approbation. I have before
professed my incompetence to

   New York, July 4, 1790.

   SIR: -- In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives of January
15th, I have now the honor to enclose you a report on the subject of measures;
weights, and coins. The length of time which intervened between the date of the
order and my arrival in this city, prevented my receiving it till the 15th of
April; and an illness which followed soon after added, unavoidably, some weeks
to the delay; so that it was not till about the 20th May that I was able to
finish the report. A desire to lessen the number of its imperfections induced
me still to withhold it awhile, till, on the 15th of June, came to my hands,
from Paris, a printed copy of a proposition made by the Bishop of Autun, to the
National Assembly of France, on the subject of weights and measures; and three
days afterwards I received, through the channel of the public papers, the
speech of Sir John Riggs Miller, of April 13th, in the British House of
Commons, on the same subject. In the report which I had prepared, and was then
about to give in, I had proposed the latitude of 38^o, as that which should fix
our standard, because it was the medium latitude of the United States; but the
proposition before the National Assembly of France, to take that of 45^o as
being a middle term between the equator and both poles, and a term which
consequently might unite the nations of both hemispheres, appeared to me so
well chosen, and so just, that I did not hesitate a moment to prefer it to that
of 38^o. It became necessary, of course, to conform all my calculations to that
standard -- an operation which has been retarded by my other occupations.

   These circumstances will, I hope, apologize for the delay which has attended
the execution of the order of the House; and, perhaps, a disposition on their
part to have due regard for the proceedings of other nations, engaged on the
same subject, may induce them still to defer deciding ultimately on it till
their next session. Should this be the case, and should any new matter occur in
the meantime, I shall think it my duty to communicate it to the House, as
supplement al to the present report.

   I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect, Sir, your
most obedient and most humble servant.

   The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives,
to prepare and report a proper plan or plans for establishing uniformity in
the currency, weights, and measures of the United States, in obedience thereto,
makes the following report:
To obtain uniformity in measures, weights, and coins, it is necessary to find
some measure of invariable length, with which, as a standard, they may be
compared.

   There exists not in nature, as far as has been hitherto observed, a single
subject or species of subject, accessible to man, which presents one constant
and uniform dimension.

   The globe of the earth itself, indeed, might be considered as invariable in all
its dimensions, and that its circumference would furnish an invariable
measure; but no one of its circles, great or small, is accessible to admeasurement through all it
parts, and the various trials to measure definite portions
of them, have been of such various results as to show there is no dependence
on that operation for certainty.

   Matter, then, by its mere extension, furnishing nothing invariable, its motion
is the only remaining resource.

   The motion of the earth round its axis, though not absolutely uniform and
invariable, may be considered as such for every human purpose. It is measured
obviously, but unequally, by the departure of a given meridian from the sun,
and its return to it, constituting a solar day. Throwing together the
inequalities of solar days, a mean interval, or day, has been found, and
divided, by very general consent, into 86,400 equal parts.

   A pendulum, vibrating freely, in small and equal arcs, may be so adjusted in
its length, as, by its vibrations, to make this division of the earth's motion
into 86,400 equal parts, called seconds of mean time.

   Such a pendulum, then, becomes itself a measure of determinate length, to
which all others may be referred to as to a standard.

   But even a pendulum is not without its uncertainties.

   1. The difficulty of ascertaining, in practice, its centre of oscillation, as
depending on the form of the bob, and its distance from the point of suspension
; the effect of the weight of the suspending wire towards displacing the centre
of oscillation; that centre being seated within the body of the bob, and
therefore inaccessible to the measure, are sources of considerable uncertainty.

   2. Both theory and experience prove that, to pre

   3. The height of the situation above the common level, as being an increment to
the radius of the earth, diminishes the length of the pendulum.

   4. The pendulum being made of metal, as is best, it varies its length with the
variations in the temperature of the atmosphere .

   5. To continue small and equal vibrations, through a sufficient length of time,
and to count these vibrations, machinery and a power are necessary, which may
exert a small but constant effort to renew the waste of motion; and the
difficulty is so to apply these, as that they shall neither retard nor
accelerate the vibrations.

   1. In order to avoid the uncertainties which respect the centre of
oscillation, it has been proposed by Mr. Leslie, an ingenious artist of
Philadelphia, to substitute, for the pendulum, a uniform cylindrical rod,
without a bob.

   Could the diameter of such a rod be infinitely small, the centre of oscillation
would be exactly at two-thirds of the whole length, measured from the point of
suspension . Giving it a diameter which shall render it sufficiently
inflexible, the centre will be displaced, indeed; but, in a second rod not the
(1) six hundred thousandth part of its length, and not the hundredth part as
much as in a second pendulum with a spherical bob of proper diameter. This
displacement is so infinitely minute, then, that we may

   2. The uncertainty arising from the difference of length requisite for the
second pendulum, or the second rod, in different latitudes, may be avoided by
fixing on some one latitude, to which our standard shall refer. That of 38^o, as
being the middle latitude of the United States, might seem the most convenient,
were we to consider ourselves alone; but connected with other nations by
commerce and science, it is better to fix on that parallel which bids fairest
to be adopted by them also. The 45th, as being the middle term between the
equator and pole, has been heretofore proposed in Europe, and the proposition
has been lately renewed there under circumstances which may very possibly give
it some effect. This parallel is distinguished with us also as forming our
principal northern boundary. Let the completion of the 45th degree, then, give
the standard for our union, with the hope that it may become a line of union
with the rest of the world.

   The difference between the second rod for 45^o of latitude, and that for 31^o,
our other extreme, is to be examined.

   The second pendulum for 45^o of latitude, according

   3. By making the experiment in the level of the ocean, the difference will be
avoided, which a higher position might occasion.

   4. The expansion and contraction of the rod with the change of temperature, is
the fourth source of uncertainty before mentioned. According to the high
authority so often quoted, an iron rod, of given length, may vary, between
summer and winter, in temperate latitudes, and in the common exposure of house
clocks, from 1/1728 to 1/2592 of its whole length which, in a rod of 58.7
inches, will be from about two to three hundredths of an inch. This may be
avoided by adjusting and preserving the standard in a cellar, or other place,
the temperature of which never varies. Iron is named for this purpose, because
the least expansible of the metals.

   5. The practical difficulty resulting from the effect of the machinery and
moving power is very inconsiderable in the present state of the arts; and; in
their progress towards perfection, will become less and less. To estimate and
obviate this, will be the artist's province. It is as nothing when compared
with the sources of inaccuracy hitherto attending measures.

   Before quitting the subject of the inconveniences, some of which attend the
pendulum alone, others both the pendulum and rod, it must be added that the rod
would have an accidental but very precious advantage over the pendulum in this
country, in the event of our fixing the foot at the nearest aliquot part of
either; for the difference between the common foot, and those so to be deduced,
would be three times greater in the case of the pendulum than in that of the
rod.

   Let the standard of measure, then, be a uniform cylindrical rod of iron, of
such length as, in latitude 45^o, in the level of the ocean, and in a cellar, or
other place, the temperature of which does not vary through the year, shall
perform its vibrations in small and equal arcs, in one second of mean time.

   A standard of invariable length being thus obtained, we may proceed to
identify, by that, the measures, weights and coins of the United States; but
here a doubt presents itself as to the extent of the reformation meditated by
the House of Representatives.

   The experiment made by Congress in the year one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-six, by declaring that there should be one money of account and payment
through the United States, and that its parts and multiples should be in a
decimal ratio,¹has obtained such general approbation, both at home and
abroad, that nothing seems wanting but the actual coinage, to banish the
discordant pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of the different States, and
to establish in their stead the new denominations. Is it in contemplation
with the House of Representatives to extend a like improvement to our
measures and weights, and to arrange them also in a decimal ratio? The facility
which this would introduce into the vulgar arithmetic would, unquestionably,
be soon and sensibly felt by the whole mass of the people, who would thereby be
enabled to compute for themselves whatever they should have occasion to buy, to
sell, or to measure, which the present complicated and difficult ratios place
beyond their computation for the most part. Or, is it the opinion of the
Representatives that the difficulty of changing the established habits of a
whole nation opposes an insuperable bar to this improvement? Under this
uncertainty, the Secretary of State thinks it his duty to submit alternative
plans, that the House may, at their will, adopt either the one or the other,
exclusively, or the one for the present and the other for a future

   1. And first, on the supposition that the present measures and weights are to
be retained but to be rendered uniform and invariable, by bringing them to the
same invariable standard.

   The first settlers of these States, having come chiefly from England, brought
with them the measures and weights of that country. These alone are generally
established among us, either by law or usage; and these, therefore, are alone
to be retained and fixed. We must resort to that country for information of
what they are, or ought to be.

   This rests, principally, on the evidence of certain standard measures and
weights, which have been preserved, of long time, in different deposits. But
differences among these having been known to exist, the House of Commons, in
the years 1757 and 1758, appointed committees to inquire into the original
standards of their weights and measures. These committees, assisted by able
mathematicians and artists, examined and compared with each other the several
standard measures and weights, and made reports on them in the years 1758 and
1759. The circumstances under which these reports were made entitle them to be
considered, as for as they go, as the best written testimony existing of the
standard measures and weights of England; and as such, they will be relied on
in the progress of this report.

   On this branch of their subject, the committee of 1757-1758, says that the
standard measures of length at the receipt of the exchequer, are a yard,
supposed to be of the time of Henry VII., and a yard and ell supposed to have
been made about the year 1601; that they are brass rods, very coarsely made,
their divisions not exact, and the rods bent; and that in the year 1742, some
members of the Royal Society had been at great pains in taking an exact measure
of these standards, by very curious instruments, prepared by the ingenious Mr.
Graham; that the Royal Society had had a brass rod made pursuant to their
experiments, which was made so accurately, and by persons so skilful and
exact, that it was thought not easy to obtain a more exact one; and the
committee, in fact, found it to agree with the standards at the exchequer, as
near as it was possible. They furnish no means, to persons at a distance, of
knowing what

    Let the standard rod of 45^o be divided into 587 1/5 equal parts, and let each
of these parts be declared a line.

   Our measures of surf ace are, the acre, of 4 roods and the rood of 40 square
poles; so established by a statute of 33 Edw. I. Let them remain the same.

   The measures of capacity in use among us are of the following names and
proportions:

   But no one of these measures is of a determinate capacity. The report of the
committee of 1757-8, shows that the gallon is of very various content; and that
being the unit, all the others must vary with it.

   The gallon and bushel contain-

   There are, moreover, varieties on these varieties, from the barrel to the ton,
inclusive; for, if the barrel be of herrings, it must contain 28 gallons by the
statute 13 Eliz. c. II. If of wine, it must contain 31 1/2 gallons by the statute
2 Henry VI. c. II, and 1 Rich. III. c. 15. If of beer or ale, it must contain
34 gallons by the statute I William and Mary, c. 24, and the higher measures in
proportion.

   In those of the United States which have not adopted the statutes of William
and Mary, and of Anne before cited, nor their substance, the wine gallon of 231
cubic inches rests on the authority of very long usage, before the 5th of Anne,
the origin and foundation of which are unknown; the bushel is the Winchester
bushel, by the 11 Henry VII. undefined; and the barrel of ale 32 gallons, and
of beer 36 gallons, by the statute 23 Henry VIII. c. 4.

   The Secretary of State is not informed whether

   It is proposed to retain this series of measures, but to fix the gallon to one
determinate capacity, as the unit of measure, both wet and dry; for convenience is in favor o
abolishing the distinction between wet and dry measures.

   The wine gallon, whether of 224 or 231 cubic inches, may be altogether
disregarded, as concerning, principally, the mercantile and the wealthy, the
least numerous part of the society, and the most capable of reducing one
measure to another by calculation. This gallon is little used among the mass of
farmers, whose chief habits and interests are in the size of the corn bushel.

   Of the standard measures before stated, two are principally distinguished in
authority and practice. The statute bushel of 2150 cubic inches, which gives a
gallon of 268.75 cubic inches, and the standard gallon of 1601, called the corn
gallon of 271 or 272 cubic inches, which has introduced the mercantile bushel
of 2276 inches. The former of these is most used in some of the grain States,
the latter in others. The middle term of 270 cubic inches may be taken as a
mutual compromise of convenience, and as offering this general advantage: that
the bushel being of 2160 cubic inches, is exactly a cubic foot and a quarter,
and so, facilitates the conversion of wet and dry measures into solid contents
and tonnage, and simplifies the connection of measures

   Cylindrical measures have the advantage of superior strength, but square ones
have the greater advantage of enabling every one who has a rule in his pocket,
to verify their contents by measuring them. Moreover, till the circle can be
squared, the cylinder cannot be cubed, nor its contents exactly expressed in
figures.

   Let the measures of capacity, then, for the United States be-

   There are two series of weights in use among us; the one called avoirdupois,
the other troy.

   In the Avoirdupois series:

   According to the subdivision for gold and silver,

   So that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite to
make the pound avoirdupois; of course the weight of the pound troy is to that
of the pound avoirdupois as 5760 to 7000, or as 144 to 175.

   It is remarkable that this is exactly the proportion of the ancient liquid
gallon of Guildhall of 224 cubic inches, to the corn gallon of 272; for 224 are
to 272 as 144 to 175. (4.)

   It is further remarkable still, that this is also the exact proportion between
the specific weight of any measure of wheat, and of the same measure of water:
for the statute bushel is of 64 pounds of wheat. Now as 144 to 175, so are 64
pounds to 77.7 pounds; but 77.7 pounds is known to be the weight of (5.) 2150.4
cubic inches of pure water, which is exactly the content of the Winchester
bushel, as declared by the statute 13, 14, Will. 3. That statute determined the
bushel to be a cylinder of 18 1/2 inches diameter, and 8 inches depth. Such a
cylinder, as nearly as it can be cubed, and expressed in figures, contains
2150.425 cubic inches; a result which reflects authority on the declaration of
Parliament, and induces a favorable opinion of the care with which they
investigated the contents of the ancient bushel, and also a belief that there
might exist evidence of it at that day, unknown to the committees of 1758 and
1759.

   We find, then, in a continued proportion 64 to 77.7 as 224 to 272, and as 144
to 175, that is to say, the specific weight of a measure of wheat, to that of
the same measure of water, as the cubic contents of the wet gallon, to those of
the dry; and as the weight of a pound troy to that of a pound avoirdupois.

   This seems to have been so combined as to render it indifferent whether a thing
were dealt out by weight or measure; for the dry gallon of wheat, and the
liquid one of wine, were of the same weight; and the avoirdupois pound of
wheat, and the troy pound of wine, were of the same measure. Water and the
vinous liquors, which enter most into commerce, are so nearly of a weight, that
the difference, in moderate quantities, would be neglected by both buyer and
seller; some of the wines being a little heavier, and some a little lighter,
than water.

   Another remarkable correspondence is that between weights and measures. For
1000 ounces avoirdupois of pure water fill a cubic foot, with mathematic al
exactness.

   What circumstances of the times, or purposes of barter or commerce, called for
this combination of weights and measures, with the subjects to be exchanged or
purchased, are not now to be ascertained . But a triple set of exact proportionals representin
weights, measures, and the things to be weighed and measured,
and a relation so integral between weights and solid measures, must have

   Be this as it may, it is in such general use with us, that, on the principle of
popular convenience, its higher denominations, at least, must be preserved.
It is by the avoirdupois pound and ounce that our citizens have been used to
buy and sell. But the smaller subdivisions of drachms and quarters are not in
use with them. On the other hand, they have been used to weigh their money and
medicine with the pennyweights and grains troy weight, and are not in the
habit of using the pounds and ounces of that series. It would be for their
convenience, then,

   But it will be necessary to refer these weights to a determinate mass of some
substance, the specific gravity of which is invariable. Rain water is such a
substance, and may be referred to everywhere, and through all time. It has
been found by accurate experiments that a cubic foot of rain water weighs 1000
ounces avoirdupois, standard weights of the exchequer. It is true that among
these standard weights the committee report small variations; but this
experiment must decide in favor of those particular weights, between which, and
an integral mass of water, so remarkable a coincidence has been found. To
render this standard more exact, the water should be weighed always in the same
temperature of air; as heat, by increasing its volume, lessens its specific
gravity. The cellar of uniform temperature is best for this also.

   Let it, then, be established that an ounce is of the weight of a cube of rain
water, of one-tenth of a foot; or, rather, that it is the thousandth part of
the weight of a cubic foot of rain water, weighed in the standard temperature;
that the series of weights of the United States shall consist of pounds,
ounces, pennyweights, and grains; whereof

   Congress, in 1786, established the money unit at 375.64 troy grains of pure
silver. It is proposed to enlarge this by about the third of a grain in weight,
or a mill in value; that is to say, to establish it at 376 (or, more exactly,
375.989343) instead of 375.64 grains; because it will be shown that this, as
the unit of coin, will link in system with the units of length, surf ace,
capacity, and weight, whenever it shall be thought proper to extend the decimal
ratio through all these branches. It is to preserve the possibility of doing
this, that this very minute alteration is proposed.

   We have this proportion, then, 875 to 864, as 375.989343 grains troy to
371.2626277; the expression of the unit in the new grains.

   Let it be declared, therefore, that the money unit, or dollar of the United
States, shall contain 371.262 American grains of pure silver.

   If nothing more, then, is proposed, than to render uniform and stable the
system we already possess, this may be effected on the plan herein detailed;
the sum of which is: 1st. That the present measures of length be retained, and
fixed by an invariable standard. 2d. That the measures of surface remain as
they are, and be invariable also as the measures of length to which they are to
refer. 3d. That the unit of capacity, now so equivocal, be settled at a medium
and convenient term, and defined by the same invariable measures of length.
4th. That the more known terms in the two kinds of weights be retained, and
reduced to one series, and that they be referred to a definite mass of some
substance, the specific gravity of which never changes. And 5th. That the
quantity of pure silver in the money unit be expressed in parts of the weights
so defined.

   In the whole of this no change is proposed, except an insensible one in the
troy grain and pennyweight, and the very minute one in the money unit.

   II. But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the citizens
of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough reformation of
their whole system of measures, weights and coins, reducing every branch to the
same decimal ratio already established in their coins, and thus bringing the
calculation of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man
who can multiply and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

   The unit of measure is still that which must give law through the whole system;
and from whatever unit we set out, the coincidences between the old and new
ratios will be rare. All that can be done, will be to choose such a unit as
will produce the most of these. In this respect the second rod has been found,
on trial, to be far preferable to the second pendulum.

   Let the second rod, then, as before described, be the standard of measure; and
let it be divided into five equal parts, each of which shall be called a foot;
for, perhaps, it may be better generally to retain the name of the nearest
present measure, where there is one tolerably near. It will be about one
quarter of an inch shorter than the present foot.

   Superficial measures have been estimated, and so may continue to be, in squares
of the measures of length, except in the case of lands, which have been
estimated by squares, called roods and acres. Let

   Let the unit of capacity be the cubic foot; to be called a bushel. It will
contain 1620.055068 62 cubic inches, English; be about one-fourth less than
that before proposed to be adopted as a medium; one-tenth less than the bushel
made from 8 of the Guildhall gallons; and one-fourte enth less than the bushel
made from 8 Irish gallons of 217.6 cubic inches.

   The measures for use being four-sided, and the sides and bottoms rectangular,
the bushel will be a foot cube.

   Let the weight of a cubic inch of rain water, or the thousandth part of a cubic
foot, be called an ounce; and let the ounce be divided into 10 double scruples:

   Let the money unit, or dollar, contain eleven twelfths of an ounce of pure
silver. This will be 376 troy grains, (or more exactly, 375.989343 troy
grains,) which will be about a third of a grain, (or more exactly, .349343 of a
grain, more than the present unit.) This, with the twelfth of alloy already
established, will make the dollar or unit, of the weight of an ounce, or of a
cubic inch of rain water, exactly. The series of mills, cents, dimes, dollars,
and eagles, to remain as already established . (8.)

   The second rod, or the second pendulum, expressed in the measures of other
countries, will give the proportion between their measures and those of the
United States.

   Measures, weights and coins, thus referred to standards unchangeable in their
nature, (as is the

   A gradual introduction would lessen the inconveniences which might attend too
sudden a substitution, even of an easier for a more difficult system. After a
given term, for instance, it might begin in the custom-houses, where the
merchants would become familiarized to it. After a further term, it might be
introduced into all legal proceedings, and merchants and traders in foreign
commodities might be required to use it in their dealings with one another.
After a still further term, all other descriptions of people might receive it
into common use. Too long a postponement, on the other hand, would increase
the difficulties of its reception with the increase of our population.

   (1.) In the second pendulum with a spherical bob,

   In the cylindrical second rod, call the length of the rod, 3X19.575. or 3d, and
its radius=r and rr/2x3d=rr /6d will express the displacement of the centre of
oscillation. It is thought the rod will be sufficiently inflexible if it be 1/5
of an inch in diameter. Then r will be=.1 inch, and rr/6d=1/11 745 inches,
which is but the 120th part of the displacement in the case of the pendulum
with a spherical bob, and but the 689,710th part of the whole length of the
rod. If the rod be even of half an inch diameter, the displacement will be but
1/1879 of an inch, or 1/110356 of the length of the rod.

   (2.) Sir Isaac Newton computes the pendulum for 45^o to be 36 pouces 8.428
lignes. Picard made the English foot 11 pouces 2.6 lignes, and Dr. Maskelyne 11
pouces 3.11 lignes. D'Alembert states it at 11 pouces 3 lignes, which has been
used in these calculations as a middle term, and gives us 36 pouces 8.428
lignes = 39.1491 inches. This length for the pendulum of 45^o had been adopted
in this report before the Bishop of Autun's proposition was known here. He
relies on Mairan's ratio for the length of the pendulum in the latitude of
Paris, to wit:

   (3.) Sir Isaac Newton's computations for the different degrees of latitude,
from 30^o to 45^o, are as follows:

	Pieds.	Lignes.		Pieds.	Lignes.
30o-	3	7.948	42o	3	8.327
35	3	8.099	43	3	8.361
40	3	8.261	44	3	8.394
41	3	8.294	45	3	8.428

(4. ) Or, more exactly, 144:175::224:272.2.
(5.) Or, more exactly, 62.5:1728::77.7:2150.39.
(6.) The merchant's weight.
(7.) The English rood contains 10,890 square feet = 104.355 feet square.

    (8.) The Measures, Weights, and Coins of the Decimal System, estimated in those
of England, now used in the United States.

   

1. MEASURES OF LENGTH.

	Feet.	Equivalent in English measure.
The point,	.001	.011 inch.
The line,	.01	.117
The inch,	.1	1.174,	about 1/7 more than the English inch:
	Feet.	Equivalent in English measure.
The foot,	1.	11.744736	about 1/48 less than the English foot.
		.978728 feet,
The decad,	10	9.787,	about 1/48 less than the 10 feet rod of the carpenters.
The rood, .	100.	97.872,	about 1/16 less than the sideof an English square rood.
The furlong,	1000.	978.728,	about 1/3 more than the English furlong.
The mile,	10000.	9787.28,	about 1 6/7 English mile, nearly the Scotch and Irish mile, and 1/2 the German mile.

   

2. SUPERFICIAL MEASURE.

	Roods.
The hundredth,	.01	95.69 square feet English.
The tenth,	1	957.9
The rood,	1.	.9579.085
The double acre,	10	2.199, or say 2.2 acres English.
The square furlong,	100.	22.

   

3. MEASURE OF CAPACITY.

	Bushels.	Cub. Inches.
The metre,	001	1.62
The demi-pint,	.01	16.2,	about 1/24 less than the English half-pint.
The pottle, . . .	1	162.005,	about1/6 more than the English pottle.
			1620.055068 62
The bushel,	1.	.937531868414884352 cu feet.	about 1/4 less than the middle sized English bushel.
The quarter,	10.	9.375,	about 1/5 less than the English quarter.
The last,	100.	93.753,	about 1/7 more than the English last.

   

4. WEIGHTS.

	Pounds.	Avoirdupois.	Troy.
Mite,	.00001	.....	.041 grains,	about 1/5 less than the English mite.
Minim, or demi-grain,	.0001	.....	.4101	about 1/5 less than half-grain troy.
Carat, ..	.001	.....	.4101,	about 1/40 more than the carat troy.
Double scruple,	.01	...	41.017,	about 1/40 more than 2 scruples troy.
Ounce,	.1	9375318684148	410.170192431
		84352 oz.	.85452 oz.	about 1/16 less than the ounce avoirdupois.
Pound,	1.	9.375	.712101 lb.,
		.585957417759 lb	about 1/4 less than the pound troy.
Stone,	10	93.753oz.	7.121	about 1/4 lb. less than the English stone of 8 lbs. avoirdupois.
		5.8595
Kental,	100.	937.531 oz.	71.21	about 4/10 less than the English kental of 100lbs. avoirdupois.
		58.5957 lb
Hogshead,	1000.	9375.318 oz.	712.101
		585.9574 lb.

   

5. COINS.

	Dollars.			Troy grains.
The mill,	. 001	Dollar,	1.	.375.98934306 pure silver.
The cent,	. 01			34.18084937 alloy.
The dime,	. 1	Eagle,	10.	410.17019243

   July 15, 1790. A bill having passed both houses of Congress, and being now
before the President, declaring that the seat of the federal government shall
be transferred to the Potomac in the year 1790, that the session of Congress
next ensuing the present shall be held in Philadelphia, to which place the
offices shall be transferred before the 1st of December next, a writer in a
public paper of July 13, has urged on the consideration

   That is now to be considered.

   Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-gover
nment. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals
exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority;
for the law of the majority is the natural law' of every society of men. When a
certain description of men are to transact together a particular business, the
times and places of their meeting and separating, depend on their own will;
they make a part of the natural right of self-government. This, like all other
natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own
consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of
others; but as far as it is not abridged or modified, they retain it as a
natural right and may exercise them in what form they please, either
exclusively by themselves, or in association with others, or by others
altogether, as they shall agree.

   Each house of Congress possesses this natural right

   "A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
attendance of absent members." Art., 1, Sec. 5. A majority of every collection
of men being naturally necessary to constitute its will, and it being
frequently to happen that a majority is not assembled, it was necessary to
enlarge the natural right by giving to "a smaller number than a majority" a
right to compel the attendance of the absent

   "Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of
the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that
in which the two houses shall be sitting." Ibid. Each house exercising
separately its natural right to meet when and where it should think best, it
might happen that the two houses would separate either in time or place, which
would be inconvenient. It was necessary, therefore, to keep them together by
restraining their natural right of deciding on separate times and places, and
by requiring a concurrence of will.

   But, as it might happen that obstinacy, or a difference of object, might
prevent this concurrence, it goes on to take from them, in that instance, the
right of adjournment altogether, and to transfer it to another, by declaring,
Art. 2, Sec. 3, that "in case of disagreement between the two houses, with
respect to the time of adjournment, the President may adjourn them to such
time as he shall think proper."

   These clauses, then, do not import a gift, to the two houses, of a general
right of adjournment, which it was known they would have without that gift,
but to restrain or abrogate the right it was known they

   "Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and
House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
adjournment), shall be presented to the President for his approbation, &c."
Art. I Sec. 7. The latitude of the general words here used would have subjected
the natural right of adjournment of the two houses to the will of the
President, which was not intended. They therefore expressly "except questions
of adjournment" out of their operation. They do not here give a right of
adjournment, which it was known would exist without their gift, but they
defend the existing right against the latitude of their own phrases, in a case
where there was no good reason to abridge it. The exception admits they will
have the right of adjournment, without pointing out the source from which they
will derive it.

   These are all the passages of the Constitution (one only excepted, which shall
be presently cited) where the right of adjournment is touched; and it is
evident that none of these are introduced to give that right; but every one
supposes it to be existing, and provides

   The right of adjournment, then, is not given by the Constitution, and
consequently it may be modified by law without interfering with that
instrument. It is a natural right, and, like all other natural rights, may be
abridged or regulated in its exercise by law; and the concurrence of the third
branch in any law regulating its exercise is so efficient an ingredient in that
law, that the right cannot be otherwise exercised but after a repeal by a new
law. The express terms of the Constitution itself show that this right may be
modified by law, when, in Art. 1, Sec. 4, (the only remaining passage on the
subject not yet quoted) it says, "The Congress shall assemble at least once in
every year, and such meeting shall be the first Monday in December, unless they
shall, by law, appoint a different day." Then another day may be appointed by
law; and the President's assent is an efficient ingredient in that law. Nay
further, they cannot adjourn over the first Monday of December but by a law.
This is another constitutional abridgment of their natural right of adjournme
nt; and completing our review of all the clauses in the Constitution which
touch that right, authorizes us to say no part of that instrument gives it; and
that the houses hold it, not from the Constitution, but from nature.

   A consequence of this is, that the houses may, by

   The sense of Congress itself is always respectable authority. It has been given
very remarkably on the present subject. The address to the President in the
paper of the 13th is a complete digest of all the arguments urged on the floor
of the Representatives against the constitutionality of the bill now before
the President; and they were overruled by a majority of that house, comprehending the delegatio
of all the States south of the Hudson, except South
Carolina.

   At the last session of Congress, when the bill for remaining a certain term at
New York, and then removing to Susquehanna or Germantown was objected to on
the same ground, the objection was overruled by a majority comprehending the
delegations of the northern half of the union with that of South Carolina. So
that the sense of every State in the union has been expressed, by its
delegation, against this objection South Carolina excepted, and excepting also
Rhode Island, which has never yet had a delegation in place to vote on the
question. In both these instances, the Senate concurred with the majority of
the Representatives. The sense of the two houses is stronger authority in this
case, as it is given against their own supposed privilege.

   It would be as tedious, as it is unnecessary, to take up and discuss one by
one, the objections proposed in the paper of July 13. Every one of them is
founded on the supposition that the two houses hold their right of adjournment
from the Constitution. This error being corrected, the objections founded on
it fall of themselves.

   It would also be work of mere supererogation to show that, granting what this
writer takes for granted (that the President's assent would be an inoperative
ingredient, because excluded by the Constitution, as he says), yet the
particular views of the writer would be frustrated, for on every hypothesis of
what the President may do, Congress must go to Philadelphia. 1. If he assents
to the bill, that

   Opinion respecting the expenses and salaries of foreign Ministers.
July 17, 1790. The bill on the intercourse with foreign nations restrains the
President from allowing to Ministers Plenipotentiary, or to Congress, more
than $9,000, and $4,500 for their "personal services, and other expenses." This
definition of the objects for which the allowance is provided appearing vague,
the Secretary

   The Vice-President, Chief Justice, and Secretary of State, concurred in the
opinion that the salaries named by the act are much below those of the same
grade at the courts of Europe, and less than the public good requires they
should be. Consequently, that the expenses not included within the definition
of the law, should be allowed as an additional charge.

   1. Couriers, Gazettes, Translating necessary papers, Printing necessary papers,
Aids to poor Americans. All three agreed that these ought to be allowed as
additional charges, not included within the meaning of the phrase, "his
personal services, and other expenses."

   2. Postage, Stationery, Court-fees. -- One of the gentlemen being of opinion
that the phrase "personal services, and other expenses," was meant to comprehen
d all the ordinary expenses of the office,

   3. Ceremonies; such as diplomatic and public dinners, galas, and illumination
s. One gentleman only was of opinion these might be allowed.

   The expenses of the first class may probably amount to about fifty dollars a
year. Those of the second, to about four or five hundred dollars. Those of the
third are so different at different courts, and so indefinite in all of them,
that no general estimate can be proposed.

   The Secretary of State thought it his duty to lay this information before the
President, supposing it might be satisfactory to himself, as well as to the
diplomatic gentlemen, to leave nothing uncertain as to their allowances; and
because, too, a previous determination is in some degree necessary to the
forming an estimate which may not exceed the whole sum appropriated.

   The Secretary of State has also consulted on the subject of the Morocco
consulship, with Mr. Barclay,

   The Secretary of State, on a view of Mr. Barclay's note, very much doubts the
sufficiency of the sum of six hundred dollars; he supposes a little money there
may save a great deal; but he is unable to propose any specific augmentation
till a view of the whole diplomatic establishments and its expenses, may
furnish better grounds for it.

   Appended to this note, were the following estimates of the expenses of foreign
ministers, and of the probable calls on our foreign fund, from July 1, 1790, to
July 1, 1791:

   July 29th, 1790.

   Colonel McGillivray, with a company of British merchants, having hitherto
enjoyed a monopoly of the commerce of the Creek nation, with a right of
importing their goods duty free, and considering these privileges as the
principal sources of his power over that nation, is unwilling to enter into
treaty

   Our citizens, at this time, are not permitted to trade in that nation. The
nation has a right to give us their peace, and to withhold their commerce, to
place it under whatever monopolies or regulations they please. If they insist
that only Colonel McGillivray and his company shall be permitted to trade among
them, we have no right to say the contrary. We shall even gain some advantage
in substituting citizens of the United States instead of British subjects, as
associates of Colonel McGillivray, and excluding both British and Spaniards
from the country.

   Suppose, then, it be expressly stipulated by treaty, that no person be
permitted to trade in the Creek country, without a license from the President,
that but a fixed number shall be permitted to trade there at all, and that the
goods imported for and sent to the Creek nation, shall be duty free. It may
further be either expressed that the person licensed shall be approved by the
leader or leaders of the nation, or without this, it may be understood between
the President and McGillivray that the stipulated number of licenses shall be
sent to him blank, to fill up. A treaty made by the President, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, is a law of the land,

   August 26, 1790. On consideration of the letter of our banker, of January
25th, 1790, the Secretary of the Treasury's answer to it, and the draught of
powers and instructions to him, I am of opinion, as I always have been, that
the purchase of our debt to France by private speculators, would have been an
operation extremely injurious to our credit; and that the consequence

   The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the draught of instructions,
present this plan to view: First, to borrow on the best terms we can, not
exceeding those limited by the law, such a sum as may answer all demands of
principal or interest of the foreign debts, due, or to become due before the
end of 1791. [This I think he supposes will be about three and a half millions
of dollars.] Second, to consider two of the three millions of florins already
borrowed by our bankers as, so far, an execution of this operation; consequent
ly, that there will remain but about two and a half millions of dollars to be
borrowed on the old terms. Third, to borrow no more as yet, towards completing
the transfer of the French debt to Amsterdam, unless we can do it on more
advantageous terms. Fourth, to consider the third millions of florins already
borrowed by our bankers, as, so far, an execution of the powers given the
President to borrow two millions of dollars, by the act of the 12th of August.
The whole of this appears to me to be wise. If the third million be employed in
buying up our foreign paper, on the exchange of Amsterdam, by creating a demand
for that species of paper, it will excite a cupidity in the monied men to
obtain more of it by new loans, and consequently enable us to borrow more and
on lower

   I would only take the liberty of suggesting the insertion of some such clause
as the following, into the instruction s: "The agents to be employed shall
never open a loan for more than one million of dollars at a time, nor open a
new loan till the preceding one has been filled, and expressly approved by the
President of the United States." A new man, alighting on the exchange of
Amsterdam, with powers to borrow twelve millions of dollars, will be
immediately beset with bankers and brokers, who will pour into his ear, from
the most unsuspected quarters, such informations and suspicions as may lead
him exactly into their snares. So wonderfully dexterous are they in wrapping
up and complicating their propositions, they will make it evident, even to a
clear-headed man, (not in the habit of this business,) that two and two make
five. The agent, therefore, should be guarded, even against himself, by putting
it out of his power to extend the effect of any erroneous calculation beyond
one million of dollars. Were he able, under a delusive calculation, to commit
such a sum as twelve millions of dollars, what would be said of the government? Our bankers tol
me themselves that they would not choose, in the conduct of
this great loan, to open for more than two or three millions of florins at a
time, and certainly

   GEORGE WASHINGTON TO THOMAS JEFFERSON .

   UNITED STATES, August 27, 1790. Provided the dispute between Great Britain and
Spain should come to the decision of arms, from a variety of circumstances
(individually unimportant and inconclusive, but very much the reverse when
compared and combined), there is no doubt in my mind, that New Orleans, and the
Spanish posts above it on the Mississippi, will be among the first attempts of
the former; and that the reduction of them will be undertaken by a combined
operation from Detroit.

   The consequences of having so formidable and enterprizing a people as the
British on both our flanks and rear, with their navy in front, as they respect
our western settlements which may be seduced thereby, as they regard the
security of the Union and its commerce with the West Indies, are too obvious to
need enumeration.

   What then should be the answer of the Executive of the United States to Lord
Dorchester, in case he should apply for permission to march troops through the
territory of the said States from Detroit to the Mississippi?

   What notice ought be taken of the measure, if it should be undertaken

   The opinion of the Secretary of State is requested in writing upon the above
statements.

   August 28, 1790. I am so deeply impressed with the magnitude of the dangers
which will attend our government, if Louisiana and the Floridas be added to
the British empire, that, in my opinion, we ought to make ourselves parties in
the general war expected to take place, should this be the only means of
preventing the calamity.

   But I think we should defer this step as long as possible; because war is full
of chances, which may relieve us from the necessity of interfering; and if
necessary, still the later we interfere, the better we shall be prepared.

   It is often indeed more easy to prevent the capture of a place, than to retake
it. Should it be so in the case in question, the difference between the two
operations of preventing and retaking, will not be so costly as two, three, or
four years more of war.

   So that I am for preserving neutrality as long, and entering into the war as
late, as possible.

   If this be the best course, it decides, in a good degree, what should be our
conduct, if the British ask leave to march troops through our territory, or
march them without leave.

   It is well enough agreed, in the laws of nations, that for a neutral power to
give or refuse permission to the troops of either belligerent party to pass
through their territory, is no breach of neutrality, provided the same refusal
or permission be extended to the other party.

   If we give leave of passage then to the British troops, Spain will have no just
cause of complaint against us, provided we extend the same leave to her when
demanded.

   If we refuse, (as indeed we have a right to do,) and the troops should pass
notwithstanding, of which there can be little doubt, we shall stand committed.
For either we must enter immediately into the war, or pocket an acknowledged
insult in the face of the world; and one insult pocketed soon produces another.

   There is indeed a middle course, which I should be inclined to prefer; that is,
to avoid giving any answer. They will proceed notwithstanding, but to do this
under our silence, will admit of palliation, and produce apologies, from
military necessity; and will leave us free to pass it over without dishonor, or
to make it a handle of quarrel hereafter, if we should have use for it as such.
But, if we are obliged to give an answer, I think the occasion not such as
should induce us to hazard that answer which might commit us to the war at so
early a stage of it; and therefore that the passage should be permitted.

   If they should pass without having asked leave,

   August 29, 1790. On considering more fully the question whether it will be
expedient to notify to Lord Dorchester the real object of the expedition
preparing by Governor St. Clair, I still think it will not be expedient. For,
if the notification be early, he will get the Indians out of the way, and
defeat our object. If it be so late as not to leave him time to withdraw them
before our stroke be struck, it will then be so late also as not to leave him
time to withdraw any secret aids he may have sent them. And the notification
will betray to him that he may go on without fear in his expedition against the
Spaniards, and for which he may yet have sufficient time after our expedition
is over. On the other hand, if he should suspect our preparations are to
prevent his passing our territory, these suspicions may induce him to decline
his expedition, as, even should he think he could either force or steal a
passage, he would not divide his troops, leaving (as he would suppose) an

   November 29, 1790. A territory not exceeding ten miles square (or, I presume,
one hundred square miles in any form) to be located by metes and bounds.

   Three commissioners to be appointed. I suppose them not entitled to any
salary.

   The commissioners to purchase or accept "such quantity of land on the east
side of the river as the President shall deem proper for the United States,"
viz., for the federal Capitol, the offices, the President's house and gardens,
the town house, market house, public walks and hospital. For the President's
house, offices and gardens, I should think two squares should be consolidated.
For the Capitol and offices, one square. For the market, one square. For the
public walks, nine squares consolidated.

   The expression "such quantity of land as the President shall deem proper for
the United States," is vague. It may therefore be extended to the acceptance or
purchase of land enough for the town; and I have no doubt it is the wish, and
perhaps expectation . In that case, it will be to be laid out in lots and
streets. I should propose these to be at right angles, as in Philadelphia, and
that no street be narrower than one hundred feet, with foot ways of fifteen
feet. Where a street is long and level, it might be one hundred and twenty feet
wide. I should prefer squares of at least two hundred yards every way, which
will be about eight acres each.

   The commissioners should have some taste in architecture, because they may
have to decide between different plans.

   They will, however, be subject to the President's direction in every point.

   When the President shall have made up his mind as to the spot for the town,
would there be any impropriety in his saying to the neighboring land holders,
"I will fix the town here if you will join and purchase and give the lands."
They may well afford it by the increase of value it will give to their own
circumjacent lands.

   The lots to be sold out in breadths of fifty feet; their depths to extend to
the diagonal of the square.

   I doubt much whether the obligation to build the houses at a given distance
from the street, contributes to its beauty. It produces a disgusting monotony;
all persons make this complaint against Philadelphia. The contrary practice
varies the appearance, and is much more convenient to the inhabitants .

   In Paris it is forbidden to build a house beyond a given height; and it is
admitted to be a good restriction. It keeps down the price of ground, keeps the
houses low and convenient, and the streets light and airy. Fires are much more
manageable where houses are low.

   December 14, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under his consideration
the report made by the Secretary of the Government north-west of the Ohio, of
his proceedings for carrying into effect the resolution of Congress of August
29th, 1788, respecting the lands of the inhabitants of Port Vincennes, makes
the following report thereon to the President of the United States:

    The resolution of Congress of August 29th, 1788, had confirmed in their
possessions and titles the French and Canadian inhabitants and other settlers
at that post, who, in or before the year 1783, had settled there, and had
professed themselves citizens of the United States or any of them, and had made
a donation to every head of a family, of the same description of four hundred
acres of land, part of a square to be laid off adjoining the improvements at
the post.

   The Secretary of the north-west ern government, in the absence of the
Governor, has carried this resolution into effect, as to all the claims to
which he thought it could be clearly applied: there remain, however, the
following description of cases, on which he asks further instruction s:

   1. Certain cases within the letter of the resolution,

   2. Certain persons who, by removals from one part of the territory to another,
are not of the letter of the resolutions, but within its equity, as they
conceive.

   3. Certain heads of families, who became such soon after the year 1783, who
petition for a participation of the donation, and urge extraordinary militia
service to which they are exposed.

   4. One hundred and fifty acres of land within the village granted under the
former government of that country, to the Piankeshaw Indians, and on their
removal sold by them in parcels to individual inhabitants, who in some
instances have highly improved them both before and since the year 1783.

   5. Lands granted both before and after 1783, by authority from the commandant
of the post, who, according to the usage under the French and British governments, thinkin
himself authorized to grant lands, delegated that authority to a
court of civil and criminal jurisdiction, whose grants before 1783, amount to
twenty-six thousand acres, and between that and 1787, (when the practice was
stopped,) to twenty-two thousand acres. They are generally in

   6. Two thousand four hundred acres of good land, and three thousand acres of
sunken land, held under the French, British, and American governments, as
commons for the use of the inhabitants of the village generally, and for thirty
years past kept under inclosure for these purposes.

   The legislature alone being competent to authorize the grant of lands in cases
as yet unprovided for by the laws. The Secretary of State is of opinion that
the report of the Secretary of the north-west ern government, with the papers
therein referred to, should be laid before Congress for their determination.
Authentic copies of them are herewith enclosed to the President of the United
States.

   December 14, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under his consideration,
the journal of the proceedings of the Executive in the North-western
Territory, thinks it his duty to extract therefrom, for the notice of the
President of the United States, the articles of April 25th, June 6th, 28th, and
29th. Some of which are hereto annexed.

   Conceiving that the regulations, purported in these articles, are beyond the
competence of the executive of the said government, that they amount, in fact,
to laws, and as such, could only flow from its regular legislature. That it is
the duty of the general government to guard its subordinate members from the
encroachments of each other, even when they are made through error or
inadvertence, and to cover its citizens from the exercise of powers not
authorized by the law. The Secretary of State is of opinion that the said
articles be laid before the Attorney General for consideration, and if he
finds them to be against law, that his opinion be communicated to the Governor
of the North-western Territory, for his future conduct.

   The following are the extracts alluded to above:

   April 25, 1790. -- The Governor was pleased to issue the following order, viz.:
All the inhabitants are forbidden to entertain any strangers, white, Indian, or
negro, let them come from whatsoever place, without acquainting the officer
commanding the troops, of the names of such strangers, and the place from
whence they came. And every stranger arriving at Cahokia, is ordered to present
himself to said officer within two hours after his arrival, on pain of
imprisonment.

   June 6, 1790. -- The Governor at Kaskaskias, was pleased to make the following
proclamation:

   The practice of selling spirituous liquors to the Indians in the villages being
attended with very ill consequences, it is expressly prohibited; and all and
every person transgressing this order, will be liable to be tried and fined at
the pleasure of the court of quarter sessions of the peace. And as it may be
necessary that spirituous liquors should be vended in small quantities to white
travellers and others; to prevent all danger of imposition and extortion, no
person whosoever shall sell in any of the villages or their environs,
spirituous liquors to any white person, traveller, or inhabitant, in any
quantity less than one quart at one time, without obtaining a license from the
Governor, which license shall not be granted but upon the recommendation of
the Justices of the Peace in their court of quarter sessions, and on his or
their giving security in the sum of two hundred dollars, to abide by all the
regulations made by law respecting retailers of spirituous liquors, and the
orders of the said court of quarter sessions in the premises in the meantime.
And for every offence, he or they shall be liable to prosecution by indictment
and fine at the pleasure of the court, and to the forfeiture of their bonds.

   Nor shall any person undertake or exercise the calling or occupation of an
Inn-holder or Tavern-kee per, without obtaining in the same manner, and under
the same restrictions and penalties, a license for so doing.

   PROCLAMATION. -- Whereas, his Excellency, Arthur St. Clair, Esq., Governor and
Commander-in-chief of this Territory, did by proclamation given at the
Kaskaskias the 10th instant, strictly prohibit all persons, not citizens of the
United States or the Territory, from hunting or killing any kind of game within
the same, either for the flesh or

   And it appearing to me to be particularly essential to the interests of this
country, that an observance of the order and prohibition should be obtained, I
do hereby call upon all civil and military officers, who now are, or hereafter
may be appointed, to use their best endeavors for detecting and bringing to
justice every person who shall violate the same. And, whereas, it appears to me
to be expedient that government should receive information of all characters;
foreigners and others, coming into the Territory, I do hereby order and direct
that any person arriving at this, or any of the military posts of the United
States within the same, should present himself to the commanding officer of
the troops in two hours next after his arrival; and the inhabitants are hereby
forbidden to entertain Such characters, whether whites, Indians, or negroes,
without immediate information thereof to the said commanding officers.

   Given under my hand and seal at the town of Post Vincennes, and county of Knox,
this 28th day of June, A. D. 1790, and of the Independence of the United
States, the fourteenth. (Signed,) WINTHROP SARGENT.

   June 29, 1790: It is to be considered as a standing order hereafter, that no
person enrolled in the militia shall leave the village or stations, for a
longer absence than twenty-fou r hours, without informing him (Mayor Hamtramek)
or the commanding officer for the time being, of their intention, And all
intelligence or discoveries of Indians, to be immediately reported. (Signed,)
WINTHROP SARGENT.

   December 15, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under consideration the
two letters of October 13th, 1789, from

   The President's letter of January 22d, authorized Mr. Morris to enter into
conference with the British ministers in order to discover their sentiments on
the following subjects:

   1. Their retention of the western posts contrary to the treaty of peace.

   2. Indemnification for the negroes carried off against the stipulations of
the same treaty.

   3. A treaty for the regulation of the commerce between the two countries.

   4. The exchange of a minister.

   The letters of Mr. Morris before mentioned, state the communications, oral and
written, which have passed between him and the ministers; and from these the
Secretary of State draws the following inferences:

   1. That the British court is decided not to surrender the posts in any event;
and that they will urge as a pretext that though our courts of justice are now
open to British subjects, they were so long shut after the peace as to have
defeated irremedially the recovery of debts in many cases. They suggest,
indeed, the idea of an indemnification on our part. But probably were we
disposed to admit their right

   2. That as to indemnification for the negroes, their measures for concealing
them were in the first instance so efficacious, as to reduce our demand for
them, so far as we can support it by direct proof, to be very small indeed. Its
smallness seems to have kept it out of discussion. Were other difficulties
removed, they would probably make none of this article.

   3. That they equivocate on every proposal of a treaty of commerce, and
authorize in their communications with Mr. Morris the same conclusions which
have been drawn from those they had had from time to time with Mr. Adams, and
those through Mayor Beckwith; to wit, that they do not mean to submit their
present advantages in commerce to the risk which might attend a discussion of
them, whereon some reciprocity could not f ail to be demanded. Unless, indeed,
we would agree to make it a treaty of alliance as well as commerce, so as to
undermine our obligations with France. This method of stripping that rival
nation of its alliances, they tried successfully with Holland, endeavored at
it with Spain, and have plainly and repeatedly suggested to us. For this they
would probably relax some of the rigors they exercise against our commerce.

   4. That as to a minister, their Secretary for Foreign Affairs is disposed to
exchange one, but meets

   From the whole of which, the Secretary of State is of opinion that Mr. Morris'
letters remove any doubts which might have been entertained as to the
intentions and dispositions of the British cabinet.

   That it would be dishonorable to the United States, useless and even
injurious, to renew the propositions for a treaty of commerce, or for the
exchange of a minister; and that these subjects should now remain dormant, till
they shall be brought forward earnestly by them.

   That the demands of the posts, and of indemnification for the negroes, should
not be again made till we are in readiness to do ourselves the justice which
may be refused.

   That Mr. Morris should be informed that he has fulfilled the object of his
agency to the satisfaction of the President, inasmuch as he has enabled him to
judge of the real views of the British cabinet, and that it is his pleasure
that the matters committed to him be left in the situation in which the letter
shall find them.

   That a proper compensation be given to Mr. Morris for his services herein,
which having been begun on the 22d of January, and ended the 18th of September,
comprehend a space of near eight months; that the allowance to an agent may be
properly fixed anywhere between the half and the whole of what is allowed to a
Chargé d'Affaires;

   December 28, 1790. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of
Representatives so much of the speech of the President of the United States to
both Houses of Congress, as relates to the trade of the United. States in the
Mediterranean, with instructions to report thereupon to the House, has had
the same under consideration, and thereupon makes the following report:

   The loss of the records of the custom houses in several of the States, which
took place about the commencement and during the course of the late war, has
deprived us of official information, as to the extent of our commerce and
navigation in the Mediterranean sea. According to the best which may be
obtained from other sources meriting respect, it may be concluded that about
one-sixth of the wheat and flour exported from the United States, and about
one-fourth in value of their dried and pickled fish, and some rice, found their
best markets in the

   Before the appointment of the one to Morocco, it was known that a cruiser of
that State had taken a vessel of the United States; and that the Emperor, on
the friendly interposition of the court of Madrid, had liberated the crew, and
made restitution of the vessel and cargo, as for as their condition admitted.

   This was a happy presage of the liberal treaty he afterwards concluded with our
agent, still under the friendly mediation of Spain, and at an expense of
between nine and ten thousand dollars only. On his death, which has taken place
not long since, it becomes necessary, according to their usage, to obtain
immediately a recognition of the treaty by his successor, and consequently, to
make provision for the expenses which may attend it. The amount of the former
furnishes one ground of estimate; but the character and dispositions of the
successor, which are unknown here, may influence it materially. The friendship
of this power is important, because our Atlantic as well as Mediterranean
trade is open to his annoyance, and because we carry on a useful commerce with
his nation.

   The Algerines had also taken two vessels of the United States, with twenty-one
persons on board, whom they retained as slaves. On the arrival of the agent
sent to that regency, the dey refused utterly to treat of peace on any terms,
and demanded 59,496 dollars for the ransom of our captives. This mission
therefore proved ineffectual.

   While these negotiations were on foot at Morocco and Algiers, an ambassador
from Tripoli arrived in London. The Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United
States met him in person. He demanded for the peace of that State, thirty
thousand guineas; and undertook to engage that of Tunis for a like sum. These
demands were beyond the limits of Congress,

   Our navigation, then, into the Mediterranean, has not been resumed at all
since the peace. The sole obstacle has been the unprovoked war of Algiers; and
the sole remedy must be to bring that war to an end, or to palliate its
effects. Its effects may, perhaps, be palliated by insuring our ships and
cargoes destined for that sea, and by forming a convention with the regency,
for the ransom of our seamen, according to a fixed tariff. That tariff will,
probably, be high, and the rate of insurance so settled, in the long run, as to
pay for the vessels and cargoes captured, and something more. What proportion
will be captured nothing but experience can determine. Our commerce differs
from that of most of the nations with whom the predatory States are in habits
of war. Theirs is spread all over the face of the Mediterranean, and therefore
must be sought for all over its face. Ours must all enter at a strait only five
leagues wide; so that their cruisers, taking a safe and commanding position
near the strait's mouth, may very effectually inspect whatever enters it. So
safe a station, with a certainty of receiving for their prisoners a good and
stated price, may tempt their cupidity to seek our vessels particularly. Nor
is it certain that our seamen could be induced to

   A second plan might be to obtain peace by purchasing it. For this we have the
example of rich and powerful nations, in this instance counting their interest
more than their honor. If, conforming to their example, we determine to
purchase a peace, it is proper to inquire what a peace may cost This being
merely a matter of conjecture, we can only compare together such opinions as
have been obtained, and from them form one for ourselves.

   Mr. Wolf, a respectable Irishman, who had resided very long at Algiers, thought
a peace might be obtained from that regency, and the redemption of our captives
included, for sixty or seventy thousand pounds sterling.³ His character and
opinion both merited respect. Yet his estimate being

   Captain O'Brien, one of our captives, who had been in Algiers four years and a
half at the date of his last letter, a very sensible man, and to whom we are
indebted for very minute information, supposes that peace alone, might be
bought for that sum, that is to say, for three hundred and twenty-two thousand
dollars.

   The Tripoline ambassador, before mentioned, thought that peace could be made
with the three smaller powers for ninety thousand pounds sterling, to which
were to be added the expenses of the mission and other incidental expenses. But
he could not answer for Algiers; they would demand more. The ministers
Plenipotentiary, who conferred with him, had judged that as much must be paid
to Algiers as to the other three powers together; and consequently, that
according to this measure, the peace of Algiers would cost from an hundred to
an hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds sterling; or from four hundred and
sixty to five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars.

   The latter sum seemed to meet the ideas of the Count de Vergennes, who, from a
very long residence at Constantinople, was a good judge of what related to the
porte, or its dependencies.

   A person whose name is not free to be mentioned here, a native of the continent
of Europe, who had long lived, and still lives at Algiers, with whom the
Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, at Paris, had many and long
conversations, and found his information full, clear, and consistent, was of
opinion the peace of Algiers could not be bought by the United States for less
than one million of dollars. And when that is paid, all is not done. On the
death of a dey, (and the present one is between seventy and eighty years of
age,) respectable presents must be made to the successor, that he may recognize
the treaty; and very often he takes the liberty of altering it. When a consul
is sent or changed., new presents must be made. If these events leave a
considerable interval, occasion must be made of renewing presents. And with
all this they must see that we are in condition to chastise an infraction of
the treaty; consequently some marine force must be exhibited in their harbor
from time to time.

   The late peace of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five
millions of dollars. Having received the money, they take the vessles of that
nation on the most groundless pretexts; counting, that the same force which
bound Spain to so hard a treaty, may break it with impunity.

   Their treaty with France, which had expired, was about two years ago renewed
for fifty years. The sum given at the time of renewal is not known. But
presents are to be repeated every ten years, and a

   It is the opinion of Captain O'Brien, that those nations are best treated who
pay a smaller sum in the beginning, and an annual tribute afterwards. In this
way he informs us that the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Venetians pay to Algiers,
from twenty-four to thirty thousand dollars a year, each; the two first in
naval stores, the two last chiefly in money. It is supposed, that the peace of
the Barbary States costs Great Britain about sixty thousand guineas, or two
hundred and eighty thousand dollars a year. But it must be noted that these
facts cannot be authentically advanced; as from a principle of self-condemnation, the government
keep them from the public eye as much as possible.

   Nor must we omit finally to recollect, that the Algerines, attentive to reserve
always a sufficient aliment for their piracies, will never extend their peace
beyond certain limits, and consequently, that we may find ourselves in the
case of those nations to whom they refuse peace at any price.

   The third expedient is to repel force by force. Several statements are hereto
annexed of the naval force of Algiers, taken in 1785; 1786, 1787, 1788, and

   They are at peace at present, with France, Spain, England, Venice, the United
Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark; and at war with Russia, Austria, Portugal,
Naples, Sardinia, Genoa, and Malta.

   Should the United States propose to vindicate

   At the same time it might never be necessary to draw out the whole at once, nor
perhaps any proportion of it, but for a small part of the year; as it is
reasonable to presume that a concert of operation might be arranged among the
powers at war with the Barbary States, so as that, each performing a tour of
given duration, and in given order, a constant cruise during the eight
temperate months of every year, may be kept up before the harbor of Algiers,
till the object of such operations be completely obtained. Portugal has singly,
for several years past, kept up such a cruise before the straits of Gibraltar,
and by that means has confined the Algerines closely within. But two of their
vessels have been out of the straits in the last five years. Should Portugal
effect a peace with them, as has been apprehended for some time, the Atlantic
`will immediately become the principal scene of their piracies: their peace
with Spain having reduced the profits of their Mediterranean cruises below the
expenses of equipment.

   Upon the whole, it rests with Congress to decide between war, tribute, and
ransom, as the means of reestablishing our Mediterranean commerce. If war,
they will consider how far our own resources

   No. 1 -- Extract of a letter from Richard O'Brien, one of the American captives
at Algiers, to Congress. Algiers, December 26, 1789.

   "It was the opinion of Mr. John Wolf, who resided many years in this city, that
the United States of America may obtain a peace for one hundred years with this
regency, for the sum of sixty or seventy thousand pounds sterling, and the
redemption of fifteen Americans included. Mr. Wolf was the British Chargé des
Affaires in Algiers, and was much the friend of America, but he is no more.

   "I have now been four years and a half in captivity, and I have much reason to
think, that America may obtain a peace with Algiers for the sum of sixty-five
or seventy thousand pounds, considering the present state of Algiers. That
this regency would find it their interest to take two or three American
cruisers in part payment for making a peace; and also would take masts, yards,
plank, scantling, tar, pitch, and turpentine, and Philadelphia iron, as a part
payment; all to be regulated at a certain fixed price by treaty."

   No. 2. -- Extract of a letter from the Honorable John Adams, Minister
Plenipotentiary for the United States at London, to the Honorable John Jay,
Secretary for Foreign Affairs. London, February 22, 1786.

   "On Monday evening another conference was held with the Tripolitan ambassador .
When he began to explain himself concerning his demands, he said they would be
different according to the duration of the treaty. If that were perpetual, they
would be greater; if for a term of years, less; his advice was that it should
be perpetual. Once signed by the bashaw, dey, and other officers, it would be
indissoluble and binding forever upon all their successors. But if a temporary
treaty were made, it might be difficult and expensive to revive it. For a
perpetual treaty, such as they now had with Spain, a sum of thirty thousand
guineas must be paid upon the delivery of the articles

   "He was told, that although there was full power to treat, the American
ministers were limited to a much smaller sum; so that it would be impossible to
do anything until we wrote to Congress and know their pleasure. Colonel Smith
was present at this, as he had been at the last conference, and agreed to go to
Paris, to communicate all to Mr. Jefferson, and persuade him to come here,
that we may join in farther conferences, and transmit the result to Congress.

   "The ambassador believed that Tunis and Morocco would treat upon the same
terms, but could not answer for Algiers. They would demand more. When Mr.
Jefferson arrives, we shall insist upon knowing the ultimatum, and transmit it
to Congress.

   "Congress will perceive that one hundred and twenty thousand guineas will be
indispensable to conclude with the four powers at this rate, besides a present
to the ambassadors, and their incidental charges. Besides this, a present of
five hundred guineas is made, upon the arrival of a consul in each State. No
man wishes more fervently that the expense could be less, but the fact cannot
be altered, and the truth ought not to be concealed.

   "It may be reasonably concluded that this great affair cannot be finished for
much less than two hundred thousand pounds sterling."

   No. 3. -- Extract of a letter from the Honorable Thomas Jefferson, Minister
Plenipotentiary for the United States at Paris, to the Honorable John Jay,
Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Paris, May 23, 1786.

   "Letters received both from Madrid and Algiers, while I was in London, having
suggested that treaties with the States of Barbary

   "The sum did not seem to exceed his expectations. I mentioned to him, that
considering the uncertainty of a peace, when bought, perhaps Congress might
think it more eligible to establish a cruise of frigates in the Mediterranean,
and even blockade Algiers. He supposed it would require ten vessels, great and
small. I observed to him that M. De Massiac had formerly done it with five; he
said it was true, but that vessels of relief would be necessary. I hinted to
him that I thought the English capable of administering aid to the Algerines.
He seemed to think it impossible, on account of the scandal it would bring on
them. I asked him what had occasioned the blockade by M. De Massiac, he said an
infraction of their treaty by the Algerines."

   No. 4. Extract of a letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas Jefferson.
Algiers, April 28, 1787.

   "It seems the Neapolitan ambassador had obtained a truce with this regency for
three months; and the ambassador wrote his court of his success; but about the
1st of April, when the cruisers were fitting out, the ambassador went to the
dey, and hoped the dey would give

   Extract of a letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas Jefferson. Algiers,
June 13, 1789.

   "The cruisers had orders to take the Danes; but I believe Denmark, suspecting
that on account of their alliance with Russia, that the grand seignior would
order the regency of Algiers to make war against the Danes; accordingly, the
Danes have evacuated the Mediterranean seas until the affairs of Europe are
more settled. The Danish ship with the tribute is shortly expected. She is
worth fifty thousand dollars; so that the Algerines will not make known
publicly their intention of breaking with Denmark, until this ship arrives with
the tribute. I am very sure that Mr. Robindar is very sensible of the intention
of those sea-robbers, the terror and scourge of the Christians. The reason the
Algerines have not committed any depredations on the English, is, that the
cruisers have not met with any of them richly loaded; for if they had met a
rich ship from London for Livorna, they would certainly have brought her into
port, and said that such ship was loaded for the enemy of Algiers at Livorna;
but if that was not a sufficient excuse, have overboard or clipt the pass.

   "Consul Logie has been treated with much contempt by the Algerine ministry; and
you may depend, that when the dey goes to his long home, that his successor
will not renew the peace with Great Britain, without a large sum of money is
paid, and very valuable presents. This I well know; the whole ministry says,
that the peace with the English is very old, and that the English must conform
to the custom of other nations, in giving the government here money and
presents, In fact, the Algerines are trying their endeavors to find

   Extract of a letter from Richard O'Brien to the Hon. Thomas Jefferson. Algiers,
June 13, 1789.

   "What dependence or faith could be given to a peace with the Algerines,
considering their present haughtiness, and with what contempt and derision do
they treat all nations; so that, in my opinion, until the Algerines more
strictly adhere to the treaties they have already made, it would be impolitic
in any nation to try to make a peace here; for I see they take more from the
nations they are at peace with, than from those they are at declared war with.
The Portuguese, I hope, will keep the Algerines inside the straits; for only
consider the bad consequence of the Algerines going into the mar Grandi.
Should the Portuguese make a sudden peace with this regency, the Algerines
would immediately go out of the straits, and of course, take many an American."

   No. 5. -- Extract of a letter from the Hon. John Adams, Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of th
United States at the Court of Great Britain, to the Hon. John Jay,
Esq., Secretary for Foreign Affairs. February 16, 1786.

   "The American commerce can be protected from these Africans only by negotiation
, or by war. If presents should be exacted from us, as ample as those which are
given by England, the expense may amount to sixty thousand pounds sterling a
year, an enormous sum to be sure; but infinitely less than the expense of
fighting. Two frigates of 30 guns each would cost as much to fit them for the
sea, besides the accumulating charges of stores, provisions, pay, and
clothing. The powers of Europe generally send a squadron of men of war with
their ministers, and offer battle at the same time that they propose treaties
and promise presents."

   No. 6. Several statements of the Marine force o f Algiers. Public and private.

   May 20, 1786. -- Mr. Lamb says it consists of

   

9 Chebecs	from 36 to 8 guns; manned, the largest with 400 men, and so in proportion.
10 Row Galleys

   May 27, 1787:-Mr. Randall furnishes two statements, viz.:

   A more general one-

   

1	Setye	of	34	guns.
2	"	"	32	"
1	"	"	26	"
1	"	"	24	"
1	Chebec	20	"
1	"	"	18	"
1	"	"	10	"
_____
8

    4 half-galleys, carrying from 120 to 130 Moors.

    3 galliots of 70, 60, and 50 Moors.

   A more particular one as follows:

   

1	of	32	guns,	viz.	2	eighteens,	24	nines,	6	fours,	and	450	men.
1	of	28	"	"	2	twelves,	24	"	2	sixes,	"	400	"
1	of	24	"	"			20	fours,			"	350	"
1	of	20	"	"			20	sixes,			"	300	"
2	of	18	"	"			18	"			"	260	"
1	of	16	"	"			15	"			"	250	"
2	small craft.
	_____
9

    55 gun-boats, carrying I twelve pounder each, for defence of the harbor.

   June 8, 1786.-A letter from the three American captains, O'Brien, Coffin, and
Stephens, state them as

   

1 of 32

1 of 30

3 of 24

3 of 18

1 of 12

____

9 and 55 gun-boats.

   September 25, 1787.-Captain O'Brien furnishes the following statement:

   

	1	of	30	guns,	400	men,	106	feet	length,	straight	keel.
	1	of	26	"	320	"	96	"	"	"	"
	2	of	22	"	240	"	80	"	"	"	"
	1	of	22	"	240	"	75	"	"	"	"
	1	of	22	guns,	240	men,	70	feet	length,	straight	keel.
	1	of	18	"	200	"	70	"	"	"	"
	1	of	16	"	180"64	"	"	"	"
	1	of	12	"	150	"	50	"	"	"	"
	____
	9
Galleys	1	of	4	guns	70	men	40	feet	length,	straight	keel
	2	of	2	"	46	"	32	"	"	"	"
	1	of	2	"	40	"	32	"	"	"	"

   February5,1788.-StatementbytheinhabitantsofAlgiers,spokenofinthe
report.

   About this date the Algerines lost two or three vessels, stranded or taken.

   December, 1789.-Capta in O'Brien furnishes the latest statement.

   

1	ship of 24 guns, received lately from France.
5	large cruisers.
____
6	3 galleys, and 60 gun-boats.

   In the fall of 1789, they laid the keel of a 40 gun frigate, and they expect
two cruisers from the grand seignior.

   SIR, -- In giving you an account of an opinion of Mr. Massiac, and which
absolutely corresponds with my own, I cannot too much observe how great a
difference may take place in the course of forty years between the means which
he required and those which political circumstances, that I cannot ascertain,
may exact.

   This Secretary of State, afterwards vice-Admiral, had the modesty, when a
captain, to propose a means for the reduction of Algiers, less brilliant to
himself, but more sure and economical than the one government was about to
adopt. They wanted him to undertake a bombardment; he proposed a simple
blockade. All the force he requested was a single man-of-war, two strong
frigates, and two sloops-of-war.

   I am convinced, that by blocking up Algiers by cross-anchoring, and with a
long tow, that is to say, with several cables spliced to each other, and with
iron chains, one might, if necessary, always remain

   During the war before last the English remained, even in winter, at anchor
before Morbian, on the coast of Brittany, which is a much more dangerous coast.
Expeditious preparation for sailing of the vessels which form the blockade,
which should be of a sufficient number to prevent anything from entering or
going out, while the rest remain at their stations, the choice of these
stations, skilful manoeuvres, strict watch during the night, every precaution
against the element which every seaman ought to be acquainted with; also,
against the enemy to prevent the sudden attack of boats, and to repel them in
case they should make an attack by boats prepared for the purpose, frequent
refreshments for the crews, relieving the men, an unshaken constancy and
exactness in service, are the means, which in my opinion, would render the
event indubitable . Bombardments are but transitory. It is, if I may so
express myself, like breaking glass windows with guineas. None have produced
effect against the barbarians. Even an imperfect blockade, were one to have the
patience and courage to persist therein, would occasion a perpetual evil, it
would be insupportable in the long run. To obtain the end proposed no
advantage ought to be lost. If several powers would come to a good understand
ing, and pursue a plan formed on the principles of humanity; if they were not
counteracted by others, it would require but a few years to compel the
barbarians to cease being pirates; they would become merchants in spite of
themselves. It is needless to observe, that the unsuccessful attempts of
Spain, and those under which the republic of Venice, perhaps, hides other
views, have increased the strength as well as the self-love of all the
barbarians. We are assured that the Algerines have fitted out merchantmen with
heavy cannon. This would render it necessary to block the place with two ships,
so that one of the two might remain moored near the bar, while the other might
prepare to support such of the frigates as should give chase. But their
chebecs, even their frigates, and all their vessels, although overcharged with
men, are moreover so badly armed and manoeuvred that assistance from without
would be most to be feared.

   Your excellency has told me the only true means of bringing to terms the only
people who can take a pleasure in disturbing our commerce. You see, I speak as
an American citizen; this title, dear to my heart, the value of which I justly
prize, affords me the happy opportunity of offering, still more particularly,
the homage, the sincere attachment, and the respect with which I have the honor
to be, &. ESTAING.

   December 28, 1790. The Secretary of State, having had under consideration the
situation of the citizens of the United States in captivity at Algiers, makes
the following report thereupon to the President of the United States: When the
House of Representatives, at their late session, were pleased to refer to the
Secretary of State, the petition of our citizens in captivity at Algiers, there
still existed some expectation that certain measures, which had been employed
to effect their redemption, the success of which depended on their secrecy,
might prove effectual. Information received during the recess of Congress has
so far weakened those expectations, as to make it now a duty to lay before the
President of the United States, a full statement of what has been attempted for
the relief of these our suffering citizens, as well before, as since he came
into office, that he may be enabled to decide what further is to be done.

   On the 25th of July, I.785, the schooner Maria, Captain Stevens, belonging to a
Mr. Foster, of Boston, was taken off Cape St. Vincents, by an Algerine corsair;
and, five days afterwards, the ship Dauphin, Captain O'Brien, belonging to
Messrs. Irvins of Philadelphia, was taken by another Algerine, about fifty
leagues westward of Lisbon. These vessels, with their cargoes and crews,

   Congress had some time before commissioned Ministers Plenipotentiary for
entering into treaties of amity and commerce with the Barbary Powers, and to
send to them proper agents for preparing such treaties. An agent was accordingly appointed fo
Algiers, and his instructions prepared, when the Ministers
Plenipotentiary received information of these captures. Though the ransom of
captives was not among the objects expressed in their commissions, because at
their dates the case did not exist, yet they thought it their duty to undertake
that ransom, fearing that the captives might be sold and dispersed through the
interior and distant countries of Africa, if the previous orders of Congress
should be waited for. They therefore added a supplementary instruction to the
agent to negotiate their ransom. But, while acting thus without authority, they
thought themselves bound to offer a price so moderate as not to be disapproved.
They therefore restrained him to two hundred dollars a man; which was
something less than had been just before paid for about three hundred French
captives, by the Mathurins, a religious order of France, instituted in ancient
times for the redemption of Christian captives from the infidel Powers. On the
arrival of the agent at Algiers, the dey demanded fifty-nine thousand four
hundred and ninety-six dollars for the twenty-one captives, and could be
brought to abate

   In the beginning of the next year, 1787, the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States at Paris procured an interview with the general of the religious
order of Mathurins, before mentioned, to engage him to lend his agency, at the
expense of the United States, for the redemption of their captive citizens. He
proffered at once all the services he could render, with the liberality and the
zeal which distinguish his character. He observed, that he had agents on the
spot, constantly employed in seeking out and redeeming the captives of their
own country; that these should act for us, as for themselves; that nothing
could be accepted for their agency; and that he would only expect that the
price of redemption should be ready on our part, so as to cover the engagement
into which he should enter. He added, that, by the time all expenses were paid,
their last redemption had amounted to near two thousand five hundred livres a
man, and that he could by no means flatter us that they could redeem our
captives as cheap as their own. The pirates would take advantage of its being
out of their ordinary line. Still he was in hopes they would not be much
higher.

   The proposition was then submitted to Congress, that is to say, in February,
1787, and on the 19th of September, in the same year, their Minister
Plenipotentiary

   To destroy, therefore, every expectation of a redemption by the United States,
the bills of the Spanish consul at Algiers, who had made the kind advances
before spoken of for the sustenance of our captives, were not answered. On the
contrary, a hint was given that these advances had better be discontinued, as
it was not known that they would be reimbursed . It was necessary even to go
further, and to suffer the captives themselves and their friends to believe for
awhile, that no attention was paid to them, no notice taken of their letters.
They are still under this impression. It would have been unsafe to trust them
with a secret, the disclosure of which might forever prevent their redemption,
by raising the demands of the captors to sums which a due regard, for our
seamen, still in freedom, would forbid us to give. This was the most trying of
all circumstances, and drew from them the most afflicting reproaches .

   It was a twelvemonth afterwards before the money could be deposited in Paris,
and the negotiation be actually put into train. In the meantime the general had
received information from Algiers of a very considerable change of prices
there. Within the last two or three years the Spaniards, the Neapolitans, and
the Russians, had redeemed at exorbitant sums. Slaves were become scarce, and
would hardly be sold at any price. Still he entered on the business with an
assurance of doing the best in his power; and he was authorized to offer as far

   Nothing further was known of his progress or prospects, when the House of
Representatives were pleased, at their last session, to refer the petition of
our captives at Algiers to the Secretary of State. The preceding narrative
shows that no report could have then been made without risking the object, of
which some hopes were still entertained . Later advices, however, from the
Chargé des Affaires of the United States, at Paris, informs us, that these
measures, though not yet desperate, are not to be counted on. Besides the
exorbitance of price, before feared, the late transfer of the lands and
revenues of the clergy in France to the public, by withdrawing the means,
seems to have suspended the proceedings of the Mathurins in the purposes of
their institution.

   It is time, therefore, to look about for something more promising, without
relinquishing, in the meanwhile, the chance of success through them. Endeavors
to collect information, which have been continued a considerable time, as to
the ransoms which would probably be demanded from us, and those actually paid
by other nations, enable the Secretary of State to lay before the President the
following short view, collected from original papers now in his possession, or
from information delivered

   In 1786, the dey of Algiers demanded from our agent $59,496 for twenty-one
captives, which was $2,833 a man. The agent flattered himself they could be
ransomed for $1,200 apiece. His secretary informed us, at the same time, that
Spain had paid $1,600.

   In 1787, the Russians redeemed at $1,546 a man. In 1788, a well-informed
inhabitant of Algiers assured the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United
States at Paris, that no nation had redeemed, since the Spanish treaty, at less
than from £250 to £300 sterling, the medium of which is $1,237. Captain
O'Brien, at the same date, thinks we must pay $1,800, and mentions a Savoy
captain, just redeemed at $4074.

   In 1789, Mr. Logie, the English consul at Algiers, informed a person who wished
to ransom one of our common sailors, that he would cost from £450 to £500
sterling, the mean of which is $2,137. In December of the same year, Captain
O'Brien thinks our men will now cost $2,290 each, though a Jew merchant
believes he could get them for $2,264.

   In 1790, July 9th, a Mr. Simpson, of Gibraltar, who, at some particular
request, had taken pains to find for what sum our captives could be redeemed,
finds that the fourteen will cost $34,790, which is $2,483 a man, At the same
date, one of them, a

   It is found then that the prices are 1,200, 1,237, 1,481, 1,546, 1,571, 1,600,
1,800, 2,137, 2,264, 2,485, 2,833, and 2,920 dollars a man, not noticing that
of $4,074, because it was for a captain.

   In 1786, there were 2,200 captives in Algiers, which, in 1789, had been reduced
by death or ransom to 655. Of ours six have died, and one has been ransomed by
his friends.

   From these facts and opinions, some conjecture may be formed of the terms on
which the liberty of our citizens may be obtained.

   But should it be thought better to repress force by force, another expedient
for their liberation may perhaps offer. Captures made on the enemy may perhaps
put us into possession of some of their mariners, and exchange be substituted
for ransom. It is not indeed a fixed usage with them to exchange prisoners. It
is rather their custom to refuse it. However, such exchanges are sometimes
effected, by allowing them more or less of advantage. They have sometimes
accepted of two Moors for a Christian, at others they have refused five or six
for one.

   Perhaps Turkish captives may be objects of greater partiality with them, as
their government is entirely in the hands of Turks, who are treated in every
instance as a superior order of beings. Exchange, too, will be more practicable
in our case, as our captives have not been sold to private individuals, but
are retained in the hands of the Government.

   The liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with the liberation
of our commerce in the Mediterranean, now under the consideration of
Congress. The distresses of both proceed from the same cause, and the measures
which shall be adopted for the relief of the one, may, very probably, involve
the relief of the other.

   February 1, 1791 The representation sets forth that, before the late war,
about four thousand seamen, and about twenty-four thousand tons of shipping,
were annually employed from that State, in the whale fishery, the produce
whereof was about three hundred and fifty thousand pounds lawful money a year.

   That, previous to the same period, the cod fishery of that State employed four
thousand men, and twenty-eight thousand tons of shipping, and produced about
two hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year.

   That these branches of business, annihilated during the war, have been, in some
degree, recovered since; but that they labor under many and heavy embarrassments, which, if no
removed, or lessened, will render the fisheries every year
less extensive and important.

   That these embarrassments are heavy duties on their produce abroad, and
bounties on that of their competitors; and duties at home on several articles,
particularly used in the fisheries.

   And it asks that the duties be taken off; that bounties be given to the
fishermen; and the national influence be used abroad, for obtaining better
markets for their produce.

   The cod and whale fisheries, carried on by different persons, from different
ports, in different vessels, in different seas, and seeking different markets,
agree in one circumstance, in being as unprofitable to the adventurer, as
important to the public. A succinct view of their rise, progress, and present
state, with different nations, may enable us to note the circumstances which
have attended their prosperity, and their decline; to judge of the embarrassments which are said t
oppress ours; to see whether they depend on our own
will, and may, therefore, be remedied

   Their history being as unconnected as their practice, they shall be separately
considered.

   Within twenty years after the supposed discovery of Newfoundland, by the
Cabots, we find that the abundance of fish on its banks, had already drawn the
attention of the people of Europe. For, as early as 1517, or 1519, we are told
of fifty ships being seen there at one time. The first adventurers in that
fishery were the Biscayans, of Spain, the Basques and Bas-Bretons, of France,
all united anciently in language, and still in habits, and in extreme poverty.
The last circumstance enabled them long to retain a considerable share of the
fishery. In 1577, the French had one hundred and fifty vessels there; the
Spaniards had still one hundred, and the Portuguese fifty, when the English had
only fifteen. The Spaniards and Portuguese seem at length to have retired
silently, the French and English claiming the fishery exclusively, as an
appurtenance to their adjacent colonies, and the profits being too small for
nations surcharged with the precious metals proceeding from their mines.

   Without materials to trace the intermediate progress, we only know that, so
late as 1744, the French employed there five hundred and sixty-four ships, and
twenty-seven thousand five hundred seamen, and took one million two hundred
and forty-six

   The English, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, had employed,
generally, about one hundred and fifty vessels in the Newfoundland fishery.
About 1670 we find them reduced to eighty, and one hundred, the inhabitants of
New England beginning now to supplant them. A little before this, the British
Parliament perceiving that their citizens were unable to subsist on the scanty
profits which sufficed for their poorer competitors, endeavored to give them
some advantage by prohibiting the importation of foreign fish; and, at the
close of the century, they formed some regulations for their government and
protection, and remitted to them some duties. A successful war enabled them, in
1713, to force from the French a cession of the Island of Newfoundland; under
these encouragements, the English and American fisheries began to thrive. In
1731 we find the English take two hundred thousand quintals of fish, and the
Americans two hundred and thirty thousand, besides the refuse fish, not fit for
European markets. They continue to gain ground, and the French to lose it,
insomuch that, about 1755, they are said to have been on a par; and, in 1768,
the French have only two hundred and fifty-nine vessels, of twenty-four
thousand four hundred and twenty tons, nine thousand seven hundred and
twenty-two seamen, taking two hundred thousand quintals, while America

   Spain had formally relinquished her pretensions to a participation in these
fisheries, at the close of the preceding war; and, at the end of this, the
adjacent continent and islands being divided between the United States; the
English and French, (for the last retained two small islands merely for this
object,) the right of fishing was appropriated to them also.

   France, sensible of the necessity of balancing the power of England on the
water, and, therefore, of improving every resource for raising seamen, and
seeing that her fishermen could not maintain their competition without some
public patronage, adopted the experiment of bounties on her own fish, and
duties on that of foreign nations brought into her markets. But, notwithsta
nding this, her fisheries dwindle, from a change taken place, insensibly, in
the character of her navigation, which, from being the most economical, is now
become the most expensive. In 1786, she is said to have employed but seven
thousand men in this fishery, and to have taken four hundred and twenty-six
thousand quintals;

   The plan of the English Government, since the peace, has been to prohibit all
foreign fish in their markets, and they have given from eighteen to fifty
thousand pounds sterling on every fishing vessel complying with certain
conditions. This policy is said to have been so far successful, as to have
raised the number of seamen employed in that business, in 1786, to fourteen
thousand, and the quantity of fish taken, to 732,000 quintals.

   The fisheries of the United States, annihilated during the war; their vessels,
utensils, and fishermen destroyed; their markets in the Mediterranean and
British America lost, and their produce dutied in those of France; their
competitors enabled by bounties to meet and undersell them at the few markets
remaining open, without any public aid, and, indeed, paying aids to the public;
such were the hopeless auspices under which this important business was to be
resumed. Yet it was resumed, and, aided by the mere force of natural advantages
, they employed, during the years 1786, 1787, 1788,

   This rapid view of the cod fishery enables us to discern under what policy it
has flourished or declined in the hands of other nations, and to mark the fact,
that it is too poor a business to be left to itself, even with the nation most
advantageo usly situated.

   It will now be proper to count the advantages which aid, and the disadvantages
which oppose us in this conflict.

   Our advantages are-

   1. The neighborho od of the great fisheries, which permits our fishermen to
bring home their fish to be salted by their wives and children.

   2. The shore fisheries, so near at hand, as to enable the vessels to run into
port in a storm, and so lessen the risk, for which distant nations must pay
insurance.

   3. The winter fisheries, which, like household manufactures, employ portions
of time, which would otherwise be useless.

   4. The smallness of the vessels, which the shortness of the voyage enables us
to employ, and which, consequently, require but a small capital.

   5. The cheapness of our vessels, which do not cost above the half of the Baltic
fir vessels, computing price and duration.

   6. Their excellence as sea boats, which decreases the risk and quickens the
return.

   7. The superiority of our mariners in skill, activity, enterprise, sobriety,
and order.

   8. The cheapness of provisions.

   9. The cheapness of Casks, which, of itself, is said to be equal to an extra
profit of fifteen per cent.

   These advantages are of such force, that, while experience has proved that no
other nation can make a mercantile profit on the Newfoundland fishery, nor can
support it without national aid, we can make a living profit, if vent for our
fish can be procured.

   Of the disadvantages opposed to us, those which depend on ourselves, are
Tonnage and naval duties on the vessels employed in the fishery.

   Impost duties on salt.

   On tea, rum, sugar, molasses, hooks, lines, and leads, duck, cordage, and
cables, iron, hemp, and twine, used in the fishery; coarse woollens, worn by
the fishermen, and the poll tax levied by the State on their persons. The
statement No. 6, shows the amount of these, exclusive of the State tax and
drawback on the fish exported, to be $5.25 per man, or $57.75 Per vessel of
sixty-five tons. When a business is so nearly in equilibrio that one can hardly
discern whether the profit be sufficient to continue it or not, smaller sums
than these suffice to turn the scale against it. To these disadvantages, add
ineffectual duties on the importation of foreign fish. In justification of
these last, it is urged that the foreign fish received, is in exchange for the
produce of agriculture . To which it may be answered, that the thing given, is
more merchantable than that received in exchange, and agriculture has too many
markets to be allowed to take away those of the fisheries. It will rest,
therefore, with the wisdom of the Legislature to decide, whether prohibition
should not be opposed to prohibition, and high duty to high duty, on the fish
of other nations; whether any, and which, of the naval and other duties may be
remitted, or an equivalent given to the fisherman, in the form of a

   Of the disadvantages which depend on others, are-

   1. The loss of the Mediterranean markets.

   2. Exclusions from the markets of some of our neighbors.

   3. High duties in those of others; and,

   4. Bounties to the individuals in competition with us.

   The consideration of these will find its place more aptly, after a review of
the condition of our whale fishery shall have led us to the same point. To this
branch of the subject, therefore, we will now proceed.

   The whale fishery was first brought into notice of the southern nations of
Europe, in the fifteenth century, by the same Biscayans and Basques who led

   The English endeavored also to participate of it, In 1672, they offered to
their own fishermen a bounty of six shillings a ton, on the oil they should
bring home, and instituted, at different times, different exclusive companies,
all of which failed of success. They raised their bounty, in 1733, to twenty
shillings a ton, on the admeasurement of the vessel. In 1740, to thirty
shillings, with a privilege to the fishermen against being impressed. The
Basque fishery, supported by poverty alone, had maintained but a feeble
existence, before competitors aided by the bounties of their nation, and was,
in fine, annihilated by the war of 1745, at the close of which the English
bounty was raised to forty shillings. From this epoch, their whale fishery went
on between the limits of twenty-eight and sixty-seven vessels, till the
commencement of the last war.

   The Dutch, in the meantime, had declined gradually to about one hundred and
thirty ships, and have, since that, fallen down to less than half that

   In 1715, the Americans began their whale fishery. They were led to it at first
by the whales which presented themselves on their coasts. They attacked them
there in small vessels of forty tons. As the whale, being infested, retired
from the coast, they followed him farther and farther into the ocean, still
enlarging their vessels with their adventures, to sixty, one hundred, and two
hundred tons. Having extended their pursuit to the Western Islands, they fell
in, accidentally, with the spermaceti whale, of a different species from that
of Greenland, which alone had hitherto been known in commerce; more fierce and
active, and whose oil and head matter was found to be more valuable, as it
might be used in the interior of houses without offending the smell. The
distinction now first arose between the Northern and Southern fisheries; the
object of the former being the Greenland whale, which frequents the Northern
coasts and seas of Europe and America; that of the latter being the spermaceti
whale, which was found in the Southern seas, from the Western Islands and coast
of Africa, to that of Brazil, and still on to the Falkland Islands. Here,
again, within soundings, on the coast of Brazil, they found a third species of
whale, which they called the black or Brazil whale, smaller than the Greenland,
yielding a still less valuable oil, fit only for summer use, as it becomes
opaque

   In 1771 the Americans had one hundred and eighty-three vessels, of thirteen
thousand eight hundred and twenty tons, in the Northern fishery, and one
hundred and twenty-one vessels, of fourteen thousand and twenty tons, in the
Southern, navigated by four thousand and fifty-nine men. At the beginning of
the late war, they had one hundred and seventy-seven vessels in the Northern,
and one hundred and thirty-two in the Southern fishery. At that period, our
fishery being suspended, the English seized the opportunity of pushing theirs.
They gave additional bounties of £500, £400, £300, £200
£100 sterling,
annually, to the five ships which should take the greatest quantities of oil.
The effect of which was such, as, by the year 1786, to double the quantity of
common oil necessary for their own consumption. Finding, on a review of the
subject, at that time, that their bounties had cost the Government £13 IOS.
sterling a man, annually, or sixty per cent on the cargoes, a part of which
went consequently to ease the purchases of this article made by foreign
nations, they reduced the northern bounty

   They had, some little time before, turned their attention to the Southern
fishery, and given very great bounties in it, and had invited the fishermen of
the United States to conduct their enterprises . Under their guidance, and with
such encouragement, this fishery, which had only begun with them in 1784 or
1785, was rising into value. In 1788 they increased their bounties, and the
temptations to our fishermen, under the general description of foreigners who
had been employed in the whale fishery, to pass over with their families and
vessels to the British dominions, either in America or Europe, but preferably
to the latter. The effect of these measures had been prepared, by our whale
oils becoming subject, in their market, to the foreign duty of £18 5s. sterling
the ton, which, being more than equal to the price of the common oil, operated
as a prohibition on that, and gave to their spermaceti oil a preference over
ours to that amount. * * * * * * * *

   The fishermen of the United States, left without resource, by the loss of their
market, began to think of accepting the British invitation, and of removing,
some to Nova Scotia, preferring smaller advantages in the neighborhood of their
ancient country and friends others to Great Britain, postponing country and
friends to high, premiums.

   The Government of France could not be inattentive

   The plan adopted by the French ministry, very different from that of the first
mover, was to give a counter invitation to the Nantucket men to remove and
settle in Dunkirk, offering them a bounty of fifty livres (between nine and ten
dollars) a ton on the admeasurement of the vessels they should equip for the
whale fishery, with some other advantages . Nine families only, of thirty-three persons, accepte
the invitation. This was in 1785. In 1786, the ministry
were led to see that their invitation would produce but little effect, and that
the true means of preventing the emigration of our fishermen to the British
dominions would be to enable them still to

   The rival fishermen immediately endeavored to turn this measure to their own
advantage, by pouring their whale oils into the markets of France, where they
were enabled, by the great premiums received from their Government, perhaps,
too, by extraordinary indemnifications, to undersell both the French and
American fishermen. To repel this measure, France shut her ports to all foreign
fish oils whatever, by the arrêt No. 10. The British whale fishery fell, in
consequence, the ensuing year from two hundred and twenty-two to one hundred
and seventy-eight ships. But this general exclusion has palsied our fishery
also. On the 7th of December, 1788, therefore, by the arrêt No. 11, the ports
of France still remaining shut to all other nations, were again opened to the
produce of the whale fisheries of the United States, continuing, however, their
endeavors to recover a share in this fishery themselves, by the aid of our
fishermen. In 1784, 1785, 1786, they had had four ships. In 1787, three. In
1788, seventeen in the two fisheries of four thousand five hundred tons. These
cost them in bounty 2 2 5,000 livres, which divided on one thousand five
hundred and fifty tons of oil, the quantity they took, amounted to 145 livres

   We have had, during the years 1787, 1788 and 1789, on an average, ninety-one
vessels, of five thousand eight hundred and twenty tons, in the northern, and
thirty-one of four thousand three hundred and ninety tons in the southern
fishery. * *
These details will enable Congress to see with what a competition we have to
struggle for the continuance of this fishery, not to say its increase. Against
prohibitory duties in one country, and bounties to the adventurers in both of
those which are contending with each other for the same object, ours have no
auxiliaries, but poverty and rigorous economy. The business, unaided, is a
wretched one. The Dutch have peculiar advantages for the northern fishery, as
being within six or eight days' sail of the grounds, as navigating with more
economy than any other nation in Europe, their seamen content with lower wages,
and their merchants with lower profit. Yet the memorial No. 13, from a
committee of the whale merchants to the States General of Holland, in the year
1775, states that fourteen millions of guilders, equal to five million six
hundred thousand dollars, has been lost in that fishery in forty-seven years,
being about one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year. The States General,
thereupon, gave

   Our vessels for the northern fishery average sixty-four tons, and cost, when
built, fitted out, and victualled for the first voyage, about three thousand
dollars. They have taken, on an average, the three last years, according to the
statement No. 12, eighteen tons of oil, worth, at our market, nine hundred
dollars, which are to pay all expenses, and subsist the fishermen and merchant.
Our vessels for the southern fishery average one hundred and forty tons, and
cost, when built, fitted out, and victualled, for their first voyage, about six
thousand five hundred dollars. They have taken on an average, the three last
years, according to the same statement, thirty-two tons of oil each, worth at
our market three thousand two hundred dollars, which are, in like manner,

   The American whale fishery is principally followed by the inhabitants of the
island of Nantucket-a sand bar of about fifteen miles long, and three broad,
capable of maintaining, by its agriculture, about twenty families; but it
employed in these fisheries, before the war, between five or six thousand men
and boys; and, in the only harbor it possesses, it had one hundred and forty
vessels, one hundred and thirty-two of which were of the larger kind, as being
employed in the southern fishery. In agriculture, then, they have no resource;
and, if that of their fishery cannot be pursued from their own habitations, it
is natural they should seek others from which it can be followed, and
preferably those where they will find a sameness of language, religion, laws,
habits, and kindred. A foreign emissary has lately been among them, for the
purpose of renewing the invitations to a change of situation. But, attached to
their native country, they prefer continuing in it, if their continuance there
can be made supportable.

   This brings us to the question, what relief does the condition of this fishery
require?

   1. A remission of duties on the articles used for their calling.

   2. A retaliating duty on foreign oils, coming to seek a competition with them
in or from our ports.

   3. Free markets abroad.

   1. The remission of duties will stand on nearly the same ground with that to
the cod fishermen.

   2. The only nation whose oil is brought hither for competition with our own,
makes ours pay a duty of about eighty-two dollars the ton, in their ports.
Theirs is brought here, too, to be reshipped fraudulently, under our flag,
into ports where it could not be received under theirs, and ought not to be
covered by ours, if we mean to preserve our own admission into them.

   The third and principal object is to find markets for the vent of oil.

   Portugal, England, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Russia, the Hanse towns,
supply themselves and something more. Spain and Italy receive supplies from
England, and need the less, as their skies are clearer. France is the only
country which can take our surplus, and they take principally of the common
oil; as the habit is but commencing with them of ascribing a just value to
spermaceti whale. Some of this, however, finds its vent there. There was,
indeed, a particular interest perpetually soliciting the exclusion of our oils
from their markets.

   The late Government there saw well that what we should lose thereby would be
gained by others, not by themselves. And we are to hope that the present
Government, as wise and friendly, will also view us, not as rivals, but as
co-operato rs against a common rival. Friendly arrangements with them, and
accommodation to mutual interest, rendered easier by friendly dispositions
existing on both sides, may long secure to us this important resource for our
seamen. Nor is it the interest of the fisherman alone, which calls for the
cultivation of friendly arrangements with that nation; besides five-eighths
of our whale oil, and two-thirds of our salted fish, they take from us
one-fourth of our tobacco, three-fourths of our live stock * * a considerable
and growing portion of our rice, great supplies, occasionally, of other grain;
in 1789, which, indeed, was extraordinary, four millions of bushels of wheat,
and upwards of a million of bushels of rye and barley * * and nearly the whole
carried in our own vessels. * * They are a free market now, and will, in time,
be a valuable one for ships and ship timber, potash, and peltry.

   England is the market for the greatest part of our spermaceti oil. They impose
on all our oils a duty of eighteen pounds five shillings sterling the ton,
which, as to the common kind, is a prohibition, as has been before observed,
and, as to the spermaceti, gives a preference of theirs over ours to that
amount, so as to leave, in the end, but a scanty benefit to the fishermen; and,
not long since, by a change of

   1. Our coasting trade, already on a safe footing.

   2. Our fisheries, which, in spite of natural advantages, give just cause of
anxiety.

   3. Our carrying trade, our only resource of indemnification for what we lose
in the other. The produce of the United States, which is carried to foreign
markets, is extremely bulky. That part of

   Hence, too, would follow, that their Newfoundland ships, not receiving
provisions from us in their bottoms, nor permitted (by a law of their own) to
receive in ours, must draw their subsistence from Europe, which would increase
that part of their expenses in the proportion of four to seven, and so far
operate as a duty towards restoring the level between them and us. The tables
No. 2 and 12, will show the quantity of tonnage, and, consequently, the mass
of seamen whose interests are in distress; and No. 17, the materials for
indemnification.

   If regulations exactly the counterpart of those established against us, would
be ineffectual, from a

   The loss of seamen, unnoticed, would be followed by other losses in a long
train. If we have no seamen, our ships will be useless, consequently our ship
timber, iron, and hemp; our ship building will be at an end, ship carpenters go
over to other nations, our young men have no call to the sea, our produce,
carried in foreign bottoms, be saddled with war-freight and insurance in times
of war; and the history of the last hundred years shows, that the nation which
is our carrier has three years of war for every four years of peace. (No. 18.)
We lose, during the same periods, the carriage for belligerent powers, which
the neutrality of our flag would render an incalculable source of profit; we
lose at this moment the carriage of our own produce to the annual amount of two
millions of dollars, which, in the possible progress of the encroachment, may
extend to five or six millions, the worth of the whole, with an increase in the
proportion of the increase of our numbers. It is easier, as well as better, to
stop this train at its entrance, than when it shall have ruined or banished
whole classes of useful and industrious citizens.

   It will doubtless be thought expedient that the resumption suggested should
take effect so gradually, as not to endanger the loss of produce for the want
of transportation; but that, in order to create transportation, the whole
plan should be developed, and made known at once, that the individuals who may
be disposed to lay themselves out for the carrying business, may make their
calculations on a full view of all circumstances.

   On the whole, the historical view we have taken of these fisheries, proves they
are so poor in themselves, as to come to nothing with distant nations, who do
not support them from their treasury. We have seen that the advantages of our
position place our fisheries on a ground somewhat higher, such as to relieve
our treasury from giving them support; but not to permit it to draw support
from them, nor to dispense the government from the obligation of effectuating
free markets for them; that, for the great proportion of our salted fish, for
our common oil, and a part of our spermaceti oil, markets may perhaps be
preserved, by friendly arrangements towards those nations whose arrangements
are friendly to us, and the residue be compensated by giving to the seamen
thrown out of business the certainty of employment in another branch, of which
we have the sole disposal.

   February 15, 1791. The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among
other things:-

   1. To form the subscribers into a corporation .

   2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and
so far is against the laws of Mortmain.¹

   3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against
the laws of alienage.

   4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of
successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

   5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so for is
against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

   6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far is
against the laws of Distribution.

   7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national
authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

   8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the
States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from
¹ Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as t
permit
Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit
them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.

   I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That
"all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people."
[XIIth amendment. ] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially
drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field
of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

   The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in
my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

   1. They are not among the powers specially enumerated : for these are: 1st. A
power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States;
but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise
money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

   2d. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the
borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other
money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation
proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them
back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a
payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

   ]3d. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with
the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very
different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its
bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the
mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing
which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and
selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce,
it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State,
as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does
not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to
say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with
its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its
commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian
tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of
trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less
are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

   II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two
following:

   1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that
is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare."

   For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for
which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum, for
any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare
of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to
provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To
consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as
giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might
be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent
enumerations of power completely useless.

   It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a
Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States;
and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a
power to do whatever evil they please.

   It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of
two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts
of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless.
Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended
to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which,
as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the
very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention

   2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried
into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and
consequently not authorized by this phrase.

   It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the
collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only
the means which are "necessary ," not those which are merely "convenient" for
effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed
to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one,
for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in
some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It
would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power,
as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to
the necessary means, that is to say, to those

   But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this
subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the
transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the
treasury (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as
a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit).
Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the
treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public
debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In
most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the
seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest
and salary in each State may be made by treasury orders on the State collector.
This will take up the great export of the money he has collected in his State,
and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the
State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one
in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the
bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there
was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or
circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes,
but in the form of money. Treasury orders

   Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury
orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience, cannot
constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the ground for assuming
any non-enumerated power.

   Besides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for
lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition
among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank,
who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public
not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia, I
believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement
with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented.
This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which
may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying
into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and
well done, without this assumption; therefore, it does not stand on that
degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

   It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the
States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a

   Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of
convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the
most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against
Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of eschea
and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a
necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of
laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will
Congress be too straitlaced to carry the Constitution into honest effect,
unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the
slightest convenience of theirs?

   The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to
protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the
Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The
present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and
consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its
protection.

   It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of
everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it
is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as
to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would
naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases
where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the
Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.

   March 11, 1791. Objects which may merit the attention of the President, at
Georgetown .

   The commissioners to be called into action.

   Deeds of cession to be taken from the land-holders.

   Site of the capitol and President's house to be determined on.

   Proclamation completing the location of the territory, and fixing the site of
the capitol.

   Town to be laid off. Squares of reserve are to be decided on for the capitol,
President's house, offices of government, town-house, prison, market, and
public walks.

   Other squares for present sale designated.

   Terms of sale to be settled. As there is not as yet

   With respect to the amendment of the location so as to include Bladensburgh, I
am of opinion it may be done with the consent of the legislature of Maryland,

   The location of A B C D A having been once made, I consider as obligatory and
unalterable, but by consent of parties, except so far as was necessary to
render it practicable by a correction of the beginning. That correction might
be lawfully made either by stopping at the river, or at the spring of Hunting
creek, or by lengthening the course from the court-house so that the second
course should strike the mouth of Hunting creek. I am of opinion, therefore,
that the beginning at the mouth of Hunting creek, is legally justifiable. But I
would advise the location E F G H E to be hazarded so as to include Bladensburgh, because it is
better location, and I think will certainly be confirmed by
Maryland.

   That State will necessarily have to pass another act confirming whatever
location shall be made, because her former act authorized the delegates then in
office, to convey the lands. But as they were not located, no conveyance has
been made, and those persons are now out of office, and dispersed. Suppose the
nonconcurrence of Maryland should defeat the location E F G H E, it can only
be done on this principle, that the first location A B C D A was valid, and
unalterable, but by mutual consent. Then their non-concur rence will
re-establis h the first location A B C D A, and the second location will be
good for the part E I D K E without their concurrence, and this will place us
where we should be were we now to complete the location E B C K E. Consequent
ly, the experiment of an amendment proposed can lose nothing, and may gain, and
probably will gain, the better location.

   When I say it can lose nothing, I count as nothing, the triangle A I E, which
would be in neither of the locations. Perhaps this might be taken in
afterwards, either with or without the consent of Virginia.

   December 9, 1791. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of
Representatives the petition of Samuel

   That this should be done by general laws, extending equal right to every case
to which the authority of the legislature should be competent.

   That these cases are of divided jurisdiction: Manufactures made and consumed
within a State being subject to State legislation, while those which are
exported to foreign nations, or to another State, or into the Indian Territory,
are alone within the legislation of the General Government.

   That it will, therefore, be reasonable for the General Government to provide
in this behalf by law for those cases of manufacture generally, and those only
which relate to commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes.

   And that this may be done by permitting the owner of every manufactory, to
enter in the records of the court of the district wherein his manufactory is,
the name with which he chooses to mark or designate his wares, and rendering it
penal in others to put the same mark to any other wares.

    December 11, 1791. Observations on Major L'Enfant's letter of December 7th,
1791, to the President, justifying his demolition of the house of Mr. Carroll,
of Duddington .

   He says that "Mr. Carroll erected his house partly on a main street, and
altogether on ground to which the public had a more immediate title than
himself could claim." When blaming Mr. Carroll, then, he considers this as a
street; but when justifying himself, he considers it not yet as a street, for
to account for his not having pointed out to Carroll a situation where he might
build, he says, "The President had not yet sanctioned the plan for the
distribution of the city, nor determined if he would approve the situation of
the several areas proposed to him in that plan for public use, and that I would
have been highly to be blamed to have anticipated his opinion thereon." This
latter exculpation is solid; the first is without foundation. The plan of the
city has not yet been definitely determined by the President. Sale to
individuals, or partition decide the plan as far as these sales or partitions
go. A deed with the whole plan annexed, executed by the President, and
recorded, will ultimately fix it. But till a sale, or partition, or deed, it is
open to alteration. Consequently, there is as yet no such thing as a street,

   The Major says he had as much right to pull down a house, as to cut down a
tree.

   This is true, if he has received no authority to do either, but still there
will be this difference: To cut down a tree or to demolish a house in the soil
of another, is a trespass; but the cutting a tree, in this country, is so
slight a trespass, that a man would be thought litigious who should prosecute
it; if he prosecuted civilly, a jury would give small damages; if criminally,
the judge would not inflict imprisonment, nor impose but a small fine. But the
demolition of a house is so gross a trespass, that any man would prosecute it;
if civilly; a jury would give great damages; if criminally, the judge would
punish heavily by fine and imprisonment. In the present case, if Carroll was
to bring a civil action, the jury would probably punish his folly by small
damages,

   But is he right in saying he had as much authority to pull down a house as to
cut down a tree? I do not know what have been the authorities given him
expressly or by implication, but I can very readily conceive that the
authorities which he has received, whether from the President or from the
commissioners, whether verbal or written, may have gone to the demolition of
trees, and not houses. I am sure he has received no authority, either from the
President or commissioners, either expressly or by implication, to pull down
houses. An order to him to mark on the ground the lines of the streets and
lots, might imply an order to remove trees or small obstructions, where they
insuperably prevented his operations; but a person must know little of
geometry who could not, in an open field, designate streets and lots, even
where a line passed through a house, without pulling the house down.

   In truth, the blame on Major L'Enfant, is for having pulled down the house, of
his own authority, and when he had reason to believe he was in opposition to
the sentiments of the President; and his fault is aggravated by its having been
done to gratify private

   He desires a line of demarcation between his office, and that of the
commissioners.

   What should be this line? and who is to draw it? If we consider the matter
under the act of Congress only, the President has authority only to name the
commissioners, and to approve or disapprove certain proceedings of theirs.
They have the whole executive power, and stand between the President and the
subordinate agents. In this view, they may employ or dismiss, order and
countermand, take on themselves such parts of the execution as they please,
and assign other parts to subordinate agents. Consequently, under the act of
Congress, their will is the line of demarcation between subordinate agents,
while no such line can exist between themselves and their agents. Under the
deed from the proprietors to the President, his powers are much more ample. I
do not accurately recollect the tenor of the deed; but I am pretty sure it was
such as to put much more ample power into the hands of the President, and to
commit to him the whole execution of whatever is to be done under the deed; and
this goes particularly to the laying out the town: so that as to this, the
President is certainly authorized to draw

   December 19, 1791. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the
President of the United States, a letter from the Governor of Pennsylvania,
with the documents

   That Congress, by their resolution of June 6th, 1788, directed the Geographer
General of the United States to ascertain the quantity of land belonging to the
United States between Pennsylvania and Lake Erie, and authorized a sale
thereof.

   That a sale was accordingly made to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
That Congress, by their resolution of September 4th, 1788, relinquished to the
said commonwealth all their right to the government and jurisdiction of the
said tract of land; but the right of soil was not transferred by the
resolution.

   That a survey of the said tract has been since made, and the amount of the
purchase money been settled between the comptrollers of the United States and
of the said commonwealth, and that the Governor of Pennsylvania declares in
the said letter, to the President of the United States, that he is ready to
close the transaction on behalf of the said commonwealth. That there is no
person at present authorized, by law, to convey to the said commonwealth the
right of soil, in the said tract of land.

   And the Secretary of State is therefore of opinion that the said letter and
documents should be laid before the legislature of the United States to make
such provision by law for conveying the said right of soil, as they in their
wisdom shall think fit.

   December 22, 1791 The Secretary of State reports to the President of the
United States, that one of the commissioners of Spain, in the name of both,
has lately communicated to him verbally, by order of his court, that his
Catholic Majesty, apprized of our solicitude to have some arrangement made
respecting our free navigation of the river Mississippi, and the use of a port
thereon, is ready to enter into treaty thereon at Madrid.

   The Secretary of State is of opinion that this overture should be attended to
without delay, and that the proposal of treating at Madrid, though not what
might have been desired, should yet be accepted, and a commission plenipotentiary made out fo
the purpose.

   That Mr. Carmichael, the present Chargé des Affaires of the United States at
Madrid, from the local acquaintance which he must have acquired with persons
and circumstances, would be an useful and proper member of the commission; but
that it would be useful also to join with him some person more particularly
acquainted with the circumstances of the navigation to be treated of.

   That the fund appropriated by the act providing the means of intercourse
between the United States

   That, therefore, it will be advisable, on this account, as well as for the sake
of despatch, to constitute some one of the ministers of the United States in
Europe, jointly with Mr. Carmichael, commissioners Plenipotentiary for the
special purpose of negotiating and concluding, with any person or persons duly
authorized by his Catholic Majesty, a convention or treaty for the free
navigation of the river Mississippi by the citizens of the United States, under
such accommodations with respect to a port, and other circumstances, as may
render the said navigation practicable, useful, and free from, dispute; saving
to the President and Senate their respective rights as to their ratification of
the same; and that the said negotiation be at Madrid, or such other place in
Spain, as shall be desired by his Catholic Majesty.

   March 18, 1792. The appointment of Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Short, as commissioners t
negotiate, with the court of Spain, a treaty or convention relative to
the navigation of the Mississippi, and which perhaps may be extended to other
interests, rendering it necessary that the subjects to be treated of should be
developed, and the conditions of arrangement explained:

   These subjects are,

   I. Boundary.

   II. The navigation of the Mississippi.

   III. Commerce.

   I. As to boundary, that between Georgia and Florida is the only one which will
need any explanation . Spain sets up a claim to possessions within the State
of Georgia, founded on her having rescued them by force from the British during
the late war: The following view of the subject seems to admit no reply:

   The several States now comprising the United States of America, were, from
their first establishment, separate and distinct societies, dependent on no
other society of men whatever. They continued at the head of their respective
governments the executive magistrate who presided over the one they had left,
and thereby secured, in effect, a constant amity with the nation. In this stage
of their government their several boundaries were fixed; and particularly the
southern boundary of Georgia, the only one now in question, was established at
the 31st degree of latitude from the Appalachicola westwardly; and

   It is an established principle, that conquest gives only an inchoate treaty of
peace, which does not become perfect till confirmed by the treaty of peace, and
by a renunciation or abandonment by the former proprietor. Had Great Britain
been that

   On the conclusion of the general peace, the United States lost no time in
requiring from Spain an evacuation of their territory. This has been hitherto
delayed by means which we need not explain to that court, but which have been
equally contrary to our right and to our consent.

   Should Spain pretend, as has been intimated, that there was a secret article of
treaty between the United States and Great Britain, agreeing, if at the close
of the war the latter should retain the Floridas, that then the southern
boundary of Georgia should be the completion of the 32d degree of latitude, the
commissioners may safely deny all knowledge of the fact, and refuse conference
on any such postulatum. Or, should they find it necessary to enter into any

   The southern limits of Georgia depend chiefly on,

   1. The charter of Carolina to the lords proprietors, in 1663, extending
southwardly to the river Matheo, now called St. John, supposed in the charter
to be in latitude 31, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Sea. See
the charter in 4th⁴ Memoires de l'Amerique, 554.

   2. On the proclamation of the British King, in 1763, establishing the
boundary between Georgia

   3. On the treaties between the United States and Great Britain, of November 30,
1782, and September 3, 1783, repeating and confirming these ancient boundaries
, --

   There was an intermediate transaction, to wit: a convention concluded at the
Pardo, in 1739, whereby it was agreed that Ministers Plenipotentiary should be
immediately appointed by Spain and Great Britain for settling the limits of
Florida and Carolina. The convention is to be found in the collections of
treaties. But the proceedings of the Plenipotentiaries are unknown here. Qu.
If it was on that occasion that the southern boundary of Carolina was
transferred from latitude of Matheo or St. John's river further north to the
St. Mary's? Or was it the proclamation of 1763, which first removed this
boundary? [If the commissioners can procure in Spain a copy of whatever was
agreed on in consequence of the convention of the Pardo, it is a desirable
State paper here.)

   To this demonstration of our rights may be added the explicit declaration of
the court of Spain, that

   II. -- The navigation of the Mississippi.

   Our right to navigate that river, from its source to where our southern
boundary strikes it, is not questioned. It is from that point downwards; only,
that the exclusive navigation is claimed by Spain; that is to say, where she
holds the country on both sides; to wit: Louisiana on the west, and Florida on
the east.

   Our right to participate in the navigation of that part of the river, also, is
to be considered, under

   1. The Treaty of Paris of 1763.

   2. The Revolution
Treaty of 1782-3.

   3. The law of nature and nations.

   1. The war of 1755-1763, was carried on jointly by Great Britain and the
thirteen colonies, now the United States of America, against France and Spain.
At the peace which was negotiated by our common magistrate, a right was secured
to the subjects of Great Britain (the common designation of all those under his
governmen t) to navigate the Mississippi in its whole breadth and length, from
its source to the sea, and expressly that part which is between the island of
New Orleans and the right bank of the

   2. In the course of the Revolutionary war, in

   So that as by the treaty of 1763, the United States had obtained a common right
of navigating the whole river from its source to its mouth, so by the treaty of
1782, that common right was confirmed to them by the only power who could
pretend claims against them, founded on the state of war; nor has that common
right been transferred to Spain by either conquest or cession.

   But our right is built on ground still broader and more unquestion able, to
wit:

   3. On the law of nature and nations.

   If we appeal to this, as we feel it written on the heart of man, what sentiment
is written in deeper characters than that the ocean is free to all men, and
their rivers to all their inhabitants ? Is there a

   If we appeal to the law of nature and nations, as expressed by writers on the
subject, it is agreed by them, that, were the river, where it passes between
Florida and Louisiana, the exclusive right of Spain, still an innocent passage
along it is a natural right in those inhabiting its borders above. It would
indeed be what those writers call an imperfect right, because the modification
of its exercise depends in a considerable degree on the conveniency of the
nation through which they are to pass. But it is still a right as real as any
other right, however well-defined; and were it to be refused, or to be so
shackled by regulations, not necessary for the peace or safety of its
inhabitants, as to render its use impracticable to us, it would then be an
injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress. The right of the
upper inhabitants to use this navigation is the counter part to that of those
possessing the shore

   It is essential to the interests of both parties that the navigation of the
river be free to both, on the footing on which it was defined by the Treaty of
Paris, viz.: through its whole breadth. The channel of the Mississippi is
remarkably winding, crossing and recrossing perpetually from one side to

   It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means, without
which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.
Thus, a right to navigate a river, draws to it a right to moor vessels to its
shores, to land on them in cases of distress, or for other necessary purposes,
&c. This principle is founded in natural reason, is evidenced by the common
sense of mankind, and declared by the writers before quoted. See Grot. 1. 2. c.
2. § 15. Puffend. 1. 3. c. 3. § 8. Vattel, 1. 2. § 129.

   The Roman law, which, like other municipal laws, placed the navigation of their
rivers on the footing of nature, as to their own citizens, by declaring them
public,⁵ (flumina publica sunt, hoc est populi Romani, Inst. 2.t. 1. § 2,)
declared also that the right to the use of the shores was incident to that of
the water. Ibid, § 1, 3, 4, 5. The laws of every country probably do the same.
This must have been so understood between France and Great Britain, at the

   This incidental right extends even beyond the shores, when circumstances
render it necessary to the exercise of the principal right; as, in the case of
a vessel damaged, where the mere shore could not be a safe deposit for her
cargo till she could be repaired, she may remove it into safe ground off the
river. The Roman law shall be quoted here too, because it gives a good idea
both of the extent and the limitations of this right. Ins. l. 2.t. 1. § 4.

   Among incidental rights are those of having pilots, buoys, beacons, landmarks,
light-houses, &c., to guide the navigators. The establishment of these at
joint expense, and under joint regulations, may be the subject of a future
convention. In the meantime, both should be free to have their own,

   Very peculiar circumstances attending the river Mississippi, require that the
incidental right of accommodation on the shore, which needs only occasional
exercise on other rivers, should be habitual and constant on this. Sea vessels
cannot navigate that river, nor the river vessels go to sea. The navigation
would be useless then without an entrepôt where these vessels might safely
deposit their own cargoes, and take those left by the others; and where
warehouses and keepers might be constantly established for the safeguard of the
cargoes. It is admitted, indeed, that the incidental right thus extended into
the territory of the bordering inhabitants, is liable to stricter modifications in proportion a; i
interferes with their territorial right. But the
inconveniences of both parties are still to have their weight, and reason and
moderation on both sides are to draw the line between them. As to this, we
count much on the liberality of Spain, on her concurrence in opinion with us,
that it is for the interest of both parties to remove completely this germ of
discord from between us, and draw our friendship as close as circumstances
proclaim that it should be, and on the considerations which make it palpable
that a convenient spot placed under our exclusive occupation, and exempted from
the jurisdiction and police of their government, is far more likely to
preserve peace than a mere free port, where eternal

   If this be agreed to, the manner of fixing on that extra territorial spot
becomes highly interesting . The most desirable to us, would be a permission to
send commissioners to choose such spot, below the town of New Orleans, as they
should find most convenient.

   If this be refused, it would be better now to fix on the spot. Our information
is, that the whole country below the town, and for sixty miles above it, on the
western shore, is low, marshy, and subject to such deep inundation for many
miles from the river, that if capable of being reclaimed at all by banking, it
would still never afford an entrepôt sufficiently safe; that on the eastern
side the only lands below the town; not subject to inundation, are at the
Detour aux Anglais, or English Turn, the highest part of which, is that whereon
the fort St. Marie formerly stood. Even this is said to have been raised by
art, and to be very little above the level of the inundations. This spot then
is what we would fix on, if obliged now to decide, with from one to as many
square miles of the circumjacent lands as can be obtained, and comprehending
expressly the shores above and below the site of the fort as far as possible.

   But as to the spot itself, the limits, and even whether it shall be extra
territorial, or only a free port, and what regulations it shall be laid under,
the convenience of that Government is entitled to so much respect and
attention on our part, that the arrangement must be left to the management of
the commissioners, who will doubtless use their best efforts to obtain all
they can for us.

   The worst footing on which the determination of the ground could be placed,
would be a reference to joint commissioners; because their disagreement, a
very probable, nay, a certain event, would undo the whole convention, and leave
us exactly where we now are. Unless indeed they will engage to us, in case of
such disagreement, the highest ground at the Detour aux Anglais, of convenient
extent, including the landings and harbor thereto adjacent. This would ensure
us that ground, unless better could be found and mutually preferred, and close
the delay of right under which we have so long labored for peace-sake.

   It will probably be urged, because it was urged on a former occasion, that, if
Spain grants to us the right of navigating the Mississippi, other nations will
become entitled to it by virtue of treaties giving them the rights of the most
favored nation.

   Two answers may be given to this:

   1. When those treaties were made, no nations could be under contemplation but
those then existing, or those at most who might exist under similar

   But the decisive answer is, that Spain does not grant us the navigation of the
river. We have an inherent right to it; and she may repel the demand of any
other nation by candidly stating her act to have been, what in truth it is, a
recognition only, and not a grant.

   If Spain apprehends that other nations may claim access to our ports in the
Mississippi, under their treaties with us, giving them a right to come and
trade in all our ports, though we would not choose to insert an express
stipulation against them, yet we shall think ourselves justified to acquiesce
in fact, under any regulations Spain may from time to time establish against
their admission.

   Should Spain renew another objection, which she relied much on before, that the
English at the Revolution treaty could not cede to us what Spain had taken from
them by conquest, and what of course they did not possess themselves, the
preceding observations furnish sufficient matter for refutation.

   To conclude the subjects of boundary and navigation, each of the following
conditions is to be considered by the commissioners as a sine qua non.

   1. That our southern boundary remain established at the completion of
thirty-one degrees of latitude on the Mississippi, and so on to the ocean, as
has been before described, and our western one along the middle of the channel
of the Mississippi, however that channel may vary, as it is constantly varying,
and that Spain cease to occupy or to exercise jurisdiction in any part
northward or eastward of these boundaries .

   2. That our right be acknowledged of navigating the Mississippi, in its whole
breadth and length, from its source to the sea, as established by the treaty of
1763.

   3. That neither the vessels, cargoes, nor the persons on board, be stopped,
visited, or subjected to the payment of any duty whatsoever; or, if a visit
must be permitted, that it be under such restrictions as to produce the least
possible inconvenience. But it should be altogether avoided, if possible, as
the parent of perpetual broils.

   4. That such conveniences be allowed us ashore, as may render our right of
navigation practicable and under such regulations as may bona fide respect the
preservation of peace and order alone, and may not have in object to embarrass
our navigation, or raise a revenue on it. While the substance of this article
is made a sine qua non, the modificationsof it are left altogether to the
discretion and management of the commissioners.

   We might add, as a fifth sine quâ non, that no

   We know not whether Spain has it in idea to ask a compensation for the
ascertainment of our right.

   1. In the first place, she cannot in reason ask a compensation for yielding
what we have a right to, that is to say, the navigation of the river, and the
conveniences incident to it of natural right.

   2. In the second place, we have a claim on Spain for indemnification for nine
years' exclusion from that navigation, and a reimbursement of the heavy duties
(not less for the most part than 15 per cent on extravagant valuations) levied
on the commodities she has permitted to pass to New Orleans. The
relinquishment of this, will be no unworthy equivalent for any accommodations
she may indulge us with, beyond the line of our strict right. And this claim is
to be brought into view in proper time and manner, merely to be abandoned in
consideration of such accommodations. We have nothing else to give in
exchange. For as to territory, we have neither the right nor the disposition to
alienate

   3. On the former conferences on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose
to blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingly, specific
propositions thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object, then, was to
obtain our renunciation of the navigation, and to hold out commercial
arrangements, perhaps as a lure to us; perhaps, however, she might then, and
may now, really set a value on commercial arrangements with us, and may
receive them as a consideration for accommodating us in the navigation; or,
may wish for them, to have the appearance of receiving a consideration.
Commercial arrangements, if acceptable in themselves, will not be the less so
if coupled with those relating to navigation and boundary. We have only to take
care that they be acceptable in themselves.

   There are two principles which may be proposed as the basis of a commercial
treaty:

   1. That of exchanging the privileges of native citizens; or,

   2. Those of the most favored nation.

   1. With the nations holding important possessions in America, we are ready to
exchange the rights of native citizens, provided they be extended through the
whole possessions of both parties, but the propositions of Spain, made on the
former occasion, (a copy of which accompanies this,) were, that we should give
their merchants, vessels, and productions,

   2. Though treaties, which merely exchange the rights of the most favored
nations, are not without all inconvenience, yet they have their conveniences
also. It is an important one, that they leave each party free to make what
internal regulations they please, and to give what preferences they find
expedient to native merchants, vessels, and productions. And as we already
have treaties on this basis, with France, Holland, Sweden, and Prussia, the two
former of which are perpetual, it will be but small additional embarrassment
to extend it to Spain. On the contrary, we are sensible it is right to place
that nation on the most favored footing, whether we have a treaty with them or
not, and it can do us no harm to secure by treaty a reciprocation of the
right.

   Of the four treaties before mentioned, either the French or the Prussian might
be taken as a model. But it would be useless to propose the Prussian; because
we have already supposed that Spain would never consent to those articles which
give to each party access to all the dominions of the other; and., without this
equivalent, we would not agree to tie our own hands so materially in war, as
would be done by the 23d article, which renounces the right

   We should be admitted to all the dominions of Spain, to which any other foreign
nation is, or may be admitted.

   Article 5 being an exemption from a particular duty in France, will of course
be omitted, as inapplicable to Spain.

   Article 8 to be omitted, as unnecessary with Morocco, and inefficacious, and
little honorable with any of the Barbary powers. But it may furnish occasion to
sound Spain on the project of a convention of the powers at war with the
Barbary States, to keep up, by rotation, a constant cruise of a given force on
their coasts, till they shall be compelled to renounce forever, and against all
nations, their predatory practices. Perhaps the infidelities of the Algerines
to their treaty of peace with Spain, though the latter does not choose to break
openly, may induce her to subsidize us to cruise against them with a given
force.

   Article 9 and 10, concerning fisheries, to be omitted, as inapplicable.

   Article 11. The first paragraph of this article, respecting the droit
d'aubaine, to be omitted; that law being supposed peculiar to France.

   Article 17, giving asylum in the ports of either to the armed vessels of the
other, with the prizes taken

   Article 29. Consuls should be received in all the ports at which the vessels of
either party may be received.

   Article 30, concerning free ports in Europe and America. Free ports in the
Spanish possessions in America, and particularly at the Havana, San Domingo,
in the island of that name, and St. John of Porto Rico, are more to be desired
than expected. It can, therefore, only be recommended to the best endeavors of
the commissioners to obtain them. It will be something to obtain for our
vessels, flour, &c., admission to those ports during their pleasure. In like
manner, if they could be prevailed on to re-establish our right of cutting
log-wood in the bay of Campeachy, on the footing on which it stood before the
treaty of 1763, it would be desirable, and not endanger, to us, any contest
with the English, who,

   Article 31. The act of ratification, on our part, may require a twelvemonth
from the date of the treaty, as the Senate meets regularly but once a year; and
to return it to Madrid, for exchange, may require four months more. It would be
better, indeed, if Spain would send her ratification to be exchanged by her
representative here.

   The treaty must not exceed twelve or fifteen years' duration, except the
clauses relating to boundary, and the navigation of the Mississippi, which must
be perpetual and final. Indeed, these two subjects had better be in a separate
instrument.

   There might have been mentioned a third species of arrangement, that of making
special agreements on every special subject of commerce, and of setting a
tariff of duty to be paid on each side, on every particular article; but this
would require in our commissioners a very minute knowledge of our commerce, as
it is impossible to foresee every proposition of this kind which might be
brought into discussion, and to prepare them for it by information and
instruction from hence. Our commerce, too, is, as yet, rather in a course of
experiment, and the channels in which it will ultimately flow, are not
sufficiently known to enable us to provide for it by special agreement. Nor
have the exigencies of our new Government, as yet, so far developed
themselves, as that we can know to what degree we may

   It were to be wished, indeed, that some positively favorable stipulations
respecting our grain, flour, and fish, could be obtained, even on our giving
reciprocal advantages to some other commodities of Spain, say her wines and
brandies.

   But, 1st. If we quit the ground of the most favored nation, as to certain
articles for our convenience, Spain may insist on doing the same for other
articles for her convenience, and thus our commissioners will get themselves
on the ground of a treaty of detail, for which they will not be prepared.

   2d. If we grant favor to the wines and brandies of Spain, then Portugal and
Spain will demand the same; and in order to create an equivalent, Portugal may
lay a duty on our fish and grain, and France, a prohibition on our whale oils,
the removal of which will be proposed as an equivalent.

   This much, however, as to grain and flour, may be attempted. There has, not
long since, been a considerable duty laid on them in Spain. This was while a
treaty on the subject of commerce was pending between us and Spain, as that
court considers the matter. It is not generally thought right to change the
state of things pending a treaty concerning

   It is known to the commissioners that we found it expedient to ask the
interposition of France, lately, to bring on this settlement of our boundary,
and the navigation of the Mississippi. How far that interposition has
contributed to produce it, is uncertain. But we have reason to believe that
her further interference would not produce an agreeable effect

   Should the negotiations on the subject of navigation arid boundary assume, at
any time, an unhopeful aspect, it may be proper that Spain should be given to
understand, that, if they are discontinued without coming to any agreement,
the Government of the United States cannot be responsible for the longer
forbearance of their western inhabitants . At the same time the abandonment
of the negotiation should be so managed as that, without engaging us to a
further suspension of the exercise of our rights, we may not be committed to
resume them on the instant. The present turbid situation of Europe cannot leave
us long without a safe occasion of resuming our territory and navigation, and
of carving for ourselves those conveniences, on the shores, which may
facilitate and protect the latter effectually and permanently.

   We had a right to expect that, pending a negotiation, all things would have
remained in statu quo, and that Spain would not have proceeded to possess

   January 21, 1792 The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the President
of the United States, the letter of the Governor of Virginia of January 7th,
1792, with the report of a committee of the House of Delegates of that
commonwealth, of December 12th, 1791, and resolution of the General Assembly
thereon, of December 17th, on the case of Charles Russell, late an officer in
the service of the said commonwealth, stating that a considerable part of the
tract of country allotted for the officers and soldiers having fallen into the
State of North Carolina on the extension of their common boundary, the
legislature of the said State had, in 1781, passed an act substituting in lieu
thereof the tract of country between the said boundary and the rivers
Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and

    Reports, That the tract of country before described is within the boundaries of
the Chickasaw nation as established by the treaty of Hopewell, the 16th day of
January, 1786.

   That the right of occupancy of the said lands, therefore, being vested in the
said nation, the case of the said Charles Russell, and other officers and
soldiers of the said commonwealth, becomes proper to be referred to the
legislature of the United States for their consideration.

   March 7, 1792. The Secretary of State having understood, from communications
with the commissioners of his Catholic Majesty, subsequent to that which he
reported to the President on the 22d of December last, that though they
considered the navigation of the Mississippi as the principal object of
negotiation between the two countries, yet it was expected by their court

   After stating to our commissioners the foundation of our rights to navigate
the Mississippi, and to hold our southern boundary at the 31st degree of
latitude, and that each of these is to be a sine qua non, it is proposed to add
as follows:
On the former conferences on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose to
blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingly, specific proposition
s thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object then was to obtain our
renunciation of

   April 4, 1792. The Constitution has declared that representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers. That the number of representatives shall not exceed one
for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one representative, and
until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be
entitled to choose 3, Massachusetts 2.

   The bill for apportioning representatives among the several States, without
explaining any principle at all, which may show its conformity with the
constitution, to guide future apportionments, says, that New Hampshire shall
have 3 members, Massachusetts 16, &c. We are, therefore, to find by experiment

   

Vermont .................. .....	85,532	3
New Hampshire .. . . . . .	141,823	5
Massachusetts . . . . . . . .	475,327	16
Rhode Island. . . . . . . . .	68,444	2
Connecticut . . . . . . . . .	285.941	8
New York .. . . . . . . . . .	352,915	11
New Jersey. . . . . . . . . .	179,556	6
Pennsylvania. ...............	432,880	14
Delaware.... ..................	55,538	2
Maryland .................. ...	278,513	9
Virginia..... .................. ..	630,558	21
Kentucky .................. ....	68,705	2
North Carolina ..............	353,521	11
South Carolina..... ..........	206,236	6
Georgia .................. .......	70,843	2
	____	____
	3,636,312	120

   It happens that this representation, whether tried as between great and small
States, or as between north and south, yields, in the present instance, a
tolerably just result; and, consequently, could not be objected to on that
ground, if it were obtained by the process prescribed in the Constitution; but
if obtained by any process out of that, it becomes arbitrary and inadmissible.

   The 1st member of the clause of the Constitution above cited is express, that
representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to
their respective numbers. That is to say, they shall

   

	29	30	31	32	33	The Bill.
	____	____	____	____	____	____
Vermont .. . .. . . . . . . . .	2	2	2	2	2	3
New Hampshire .. . . . . .	4	4	4	4	4	5
Massachusetts ........	16	15	15	14	14	16
Rhode Island .. . . . . . . .	2	2	2	2	2	2
Connecticut ..........	8	7	7	7	7	8
New York ............	12	11	11	11	10	11
New Jersey .. . . . . . . . . .	6	5	5	5	5	6
Pennsylvania .........	14	14	13	13	13	14
Delaware.... .........	1	1	1	1	1	2
Maryland ............	9	9	8	8	8	9
Virginia..... .........	21	21	20	19	19	21
Kentucky .. . . . . . . . . . .	2	2	2	2	2	2
North Carolina . . . . . . . .	12	11	11	11	10	12
South Carolina .. . . . . . .	7	6	6	6	6	7
Georgia .. . . . .. . . . . . . .	2	2	2	2	2	2
	____	____	____	____	____	____
	118	112	109	107	105	120

   Then the bill reverses the constitutional precept, because, by it, representa
tives are not apportioned among the several States, according to their
respective numbers.

   It will be said that, though, for taxes, there may always be found a divisor
which wil apportion them