THE WRITINGS OF

THOMAS JEFFERSON



Definitive Edition

CONTAININ G HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, NOTES ON VIRGINIA, PARLIAMENTARY MANUAL,
OFFICIAL PAPERS, MESSAGES AND ADDRESSES , AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND
PRIVATE, NOW COLLECTED AND 



PUBLISHED IN THEIR ENTIRETY FOR THE FIRST TIME 



INCLUDING



ALL OF THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIP TS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTME NT OF STATE AND
PUBLISHED 1N 1853 BY ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WITH NUMEROUS
ILLUSTRAT IONS AND



A COMPREHE NSIVE ANALYTICA L INDEX



ALBERT ELLERY BERGH 



EDITOR



VOL. III.



ISSUED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF



THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL 

ASSOCIATI ON OF THE UNITED STATES



WASHINGTO N, D. C. 1907





I THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE.



The Louisiana Purchase was, by common consent, the supreme act of the
administrat ion of Thomas Jefferson as President, though he makes no reference
to it in citing the features of his career which he chose to have perpetuate d
in his epitaph. For that commemora tion he chose principles rather than acts.
There have been others who have framed or founded universitie s. There have
been others who have framed statutes of religious liberty. But there was only
one Louisiana Purchase.



I venture to think that there are three great master facts upon which the
enduring fame of Jefferson will rest: First, he was the author of the
Declaration of Independe nce; second, he was the founder and leader of a great
party, of a school of political thought which, under varying names, has divided
the republic from the beginning to the present time; third, he made the
Louisiana Purchase. In its historical importance this great act ranks with half
a dozen of the most momentous and epochal events in our national annals, with
his own Declaration of Independe nce, with the adoption of the Constitutio n,
with the molding of national power through constitutio nal constructio n by
Chief Justice



ii The Louisiana Purchase



Marshall, with the abolition of slavery, with the overthrow of secession and
the complete triumph of an indissolubl e union, and with the Spanish war and
all its far-reachin g consequenc es. The Louisiana Purchase nearly doubled the
boundaries of the republic. It added to her territory a little less than a
million square miles of territory. It broadened the domain of our country by an
extension which was larger in itself than Great Britain, France, Germany,
Spain, Portugal and Italy combined. It gave us what has become one of the most
fertile and opulent sections of the nation and the home of nearly fifteen
millions of happy and contented Americans. It was an indispensa ble preliminary
. to the later acquisition of that vast domain which extends from the Gulf to
Vancouver, embracing Texas, California, Oregon and Washington , and which added
more than a million square miles to our territory, now the home of six millions
more of thrifty and happy Americans who live and move and have their being
within its domain. It was the first great expansion of the republic, and the
manifesto of its continued extension with the advance of the world.



The honor which belongs to Jefferson is not simply that of being President when
the purchase was made. He was the father of the vital policy which brought that
splendid culmination . The crucial necessity which led up to the acquisition of
Louisiana was the free navigation of the Mississippi River. The great Father of
Waters was our western boundary and the



The Louisiana Purchase iii



territory which rested on its hither shore demanded an unchecked outlet to the
sea. Jefferson was the first of our statesmen to appreciate the importance of
free and untrammell ed communicat ion from the Ohio to the Gulf. Spain held New
Orleans and commanded the mouth of the Mississippi. If she was to remain there
she must grant unrestricte d privileges. As early as 1790, when Jefferson was
Secretary of State under Washington , he demanded unhampered transit. He saw as
no other man so clearly saw at that time, the tremendous significanc e of that
question. Through his efforts the free use of the port of New Orleans was
granted. After that all went well until a few years later the right of deposit
on the wharves and in the warehouses at New Orleans was withdrawn. Then the
West was instantly aflame and it became apparent that there could be no sure
and lasting peace until the control of the Mississippi was so fixed that the
United States would not be dependent upon any foreign power for its absolutely
free navigation.



Meanwhile Spain retroceded Louisiana to France and Jefferson became President.
He had, all through his previous career, been in affiliation with France and
his antipathy was England; but so strong was his conviction that there was an
inevitable antagonism between the United States and any alien power holding New
Orleans that he looked to an alliance with England, unless that foreign power
could be removed. He instructed Livingston, already



iv The Louisiana Purchase



in France, to negotiate for the purchase of New Orleans and he sent Monroe to
Paris to help him. Propitious circumstan ces unexpected ly served his end. The
peace of Amiens was broken and Napoleon faced a gigantic conflict with England
and with Europe. He wanted means and he knew that in such a conflict he could
not hold Louisiana. He proposed to sell the entire territory, and so Jefferson,
who had set out only to purchase New Orleans and the territory called West
Florida, found himself suddenly the master of that magnificent realm beyond the
Mississippi which enlarged our republic so immensely, which carried our flag
over the great domain extending from the Gulf to Canada, a domain almost equal
in extent to the original thirteen States of the Union.



It has often been urged that in this great act, the greatest act of our history
between the adoption of the Constitutio n and the Civil War, Jefferson was
inconsisten t with his principles and his professions . He was the leader of
the strict constructio nists and this act was outside of the strict letter of
the Constitutio n. But that charge of inconsisten cy can be made with equal
force against every great party and almost every conspicuou s statesman in our
history. Webster was a free trader, substantial ly, and fought Calhoun as a
protectioni st when the interests of Massachuse tts were commercial, and he was
a protectioni st when Massachuse tts wanted to foster manufactur es. Calhoun
was a protectioni st



The Louisiana Purchase v



and fought Webster as a free trader before the South had developed its great
cotton growth, and he was a free trader after that developmen t when the South
wanted to exchange raw cotton for cotton products. Madison believed that the
United States Bank was unconstitut ional and refused in 1811 to recharter it;
but in 1816 Madison signed its second charter. In 1794 the Federalists passed
an embargo and the Republican s denounced it as unconstitut ional; and in 1807
the Republican s passed an embargo and the Federalists denounced it as
unconstitut ional. The Republican s affirmed the right of nullificatio n
against the alien and sedition acts of 1798 and the Federalists denounced it;
but a few years later the Federalists asserted that right of nullificatio n
against the force act of 1809 while the other party denounced it. Virginia
recanted and repudiated the famous Virginia resolutions at the very time that
Pennsylvan ia and Ohio shifted to the other side and affirmed the same
doctrine. If it be a question of inconsisten cies, the chapter is absolutely
unlimited.



It would be, indeed, easy to find inconsisten cies between the principles of
the Declaration of Independe nce and the practice of the Louisiana Purchase.
What of it? When it comes to an issue between an abstract doctrine and vital
practical statesmans hip what masterful man, with great destinies in his hand,
does not turn from the theoretical dogma to the living and commandin g act?
What true statesman permits a general and vague conception to paralyze a
distinct,



vi The Louisiana Purchase



definite and unmistakab le good? As a political philosophe r Jefferson taught
great doctrines. As President of the United States he met the direct and
immediate responsibil ities. He did not violate the Constitutio n­whateve r was
said at the time, we know it now; but in a great public emergency he departed
from his general theory of interpretat ion, and in doing so he did an act of
transcende nt statesmans hip and he achieved an incalculabl e advantage for the
republic.



I have not been trained in the Jefferson school of thought, belonging to the
opposing school. But I recognize and honor the incalculabl e services which
Jefferson rendered to the country, not merely in its first great expansion but
in the influence of his whole administrat ion. The Constitutio n had not then
gained any traditional sanctity. There were thousands of honest men who
believed that it was dangerous to the liberties of the people. They felt that
in the hands of Washington , of Hamilton and of Adams it had been directed
along imperialisti c lines, and that it was hostile to the spirit of the
Revolution. The immeasurab le value of Jefferson's incomparab le service was
that, as the leader of the opposing host, he came into authority, calmed the
disquietud e, exercised the same rights and powers and met the same high
responsibil ity in the same statesmanli ke way, and he dissipated any lingering
fear that the Constitutio n and governmen t of our republic involved any peril
to the freedom of the people.



The Louisiana Purchase vii



And so, as a devoted admirer of his great political rival, I honor, I salute
Jefferson for his immortal work, and I join with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association in urging a national memorial to one of the most illustrious among
the founders of the Republic.



CONTENTS.



                                                                               
        PAGE 

THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE. By Charles Emory

Smith, LL. D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . i-vii



REPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY OF

STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .1-314



Report on methods for obtaining Fresh Water

from Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . I        



The Report on Copper Coinage; communicat ed

to the House of Representatives, April 15th,

1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .II



Opinion on the question whether the Senate has

the right to negative the grade of persons 

appointed by the Executive to fill Foreign 

Missions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .15 



Opinion upon the validity of a grant made by 

the State of Georgia to certain companies of 

individuals , of a tract of country whereof the 

Indian right had never been extinguished, 

with power to such individuals to extinguish

the Indian right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 18 



Opinion in favor of the resolutions of May 21st,

1790, directing that in all cases where payment 

had not been already made, the debts 

due to the soldiers of Virginia and North Carolina 

should be paid to the original claimants or their 

attorneys, and not to their assignees . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .21



Plan for establishin g uniformity in the Coinage, 

Weights, and Measures of the United States. 

Communicat ed to the House of Representatives, 

July 13th, 1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .26



Appendix, containing illustration s and developments 

of some passages of the preceding report  . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .52



The Measures, .Weights, and Coins of the Decimal 

System estimated in those of England, now used 

in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 54



Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 57



Opinion upon the question whether the President 

should veto the Bill declaring that the seat of 

governmen t shall be transferred to the Potomac, 

in the year 1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 59



Opinion respecting the expenses and salaries

of Foreign Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . . 67



Opinion in regard to the continuance of the

monopoly of the commerce of the Creek

nation, enjoyed by Col. McGillivray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .72 



Opinion respecting our foreign debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .74



Opinion upon the question what the answer of

the President should be, in case Lord Dorchester 

should apply for permission to march troops 

through the territory of the United States from 

Detroit to the Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .78 



Opinion on the questions stated in the President's 

note of August 27th, 1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 79 



Opinion on the question whether it will be expedient 

to notify to Lord Dorchester the real object of the 

expedition preparing by Governor St. Clair.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81



Opinion on proceedings to be had under the Residence act . . . . .82



Report by the Secretary of State to the President 

of the United States on the Report of the Secretary 

of the Government northwest of the Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 



Opinion on certain proceedings of the Executive

in the Northweste rn Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .88 



Report on certain letters from the President to Mr. 

Gouverneu r Morris, and from Mr. Morris to the 

President, relative to our difficulties with England-1790 . . . . . . .90 



Report relative to the Mediterranean trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  94 



Report on the Algerine Prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
112



Report of the Secretary of State on the subjects of the 

cod and whale fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 120 



Opinion against the constitutionality of a National Bank . . . . . .145



Opinion relative to locating the Ten Mile Square for the 

Federal Government, and building the Federal city . . . . . . . . . 153



Report on the policy of securing particular marks to 

Manufacturers, by law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.156 



Opinion relative to the demolition of Mr. Carroll's 

house by Major L'Enfant, in laying out the Federal city . . . . . .158



Opinion relative to certain lands on Lake Erie, sold by 

the United States to Pennsylvan ia  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.162 



Report relative to negotiations with Spain to secure 

the free navigation of the Mississippi and a port on 

the same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 164



Report on the case of Charles Russell and others,

claiming certain lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .198 



Report relative to negotiation s at Madrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199



Opinion on the bill apportionin g Representa tion . . . . . . . . . . 201



Opinion relative to a case of recapture, by citizens 

of the United States, of slaves escaped into Florida, 

and of an American captain enticing French slaves 

from St. Domingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 212



A note added by Mr. Jefferson at a later period . . . . . . . . . . .214 



Report on Assays at the Mint, communicated to 

the House of Representatives, January 8th, 1793 . . . . . . . . . .215 



Report on the petition. of John Rogers, relative 

to certain lands on the northeast side of the Tennessee . . . . . .217 



Report relative to the Boundaries of the Lands 

between the Ohio and the Lakes, acquired by

treaties from the Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 220 



Report on the proceedings of the Secretary 

of State to transfer to Europe the annual fund

of $40,000, appropriat ed to that Department . . . . . . . . . . . .223 



Opinion on the question whether the United 

States have a right to renounce their treaties with 

France, or to hold them suspended till the 

governmen t of that country shall be established . . . . . . . . . . 226



Opinion relative to granting of passports 

to American vessels .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.243 



Opinion relative to case of a British vessel 

captured by a French vessel, purchased by 

French citizens, and fitted out as a Privateer 

on one of our ports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .
.247 



 Opinion on the proposition of the Secretary 

of the Treasury to open a new Loan . . . . . . . . .  . . .  . . . . .251 



Opinion relative to the policy of a new Loan . . .  . . .  . . . . .256



Report on the privileges and restrictions on 

the commerce of the United States in 

foreign countries  . . . . . . . .  . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .261



Report on the Mint. Communicated to the 

Senate, December 31st, 1793 . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283



Report on the Tonnage payable by French 

vessels in the Ports of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286



Report on Vermont Nominations  . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296 



 Report on Unclaimed Lands . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 



 Report on the Petition of John Mangnall  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299



 Report on the Petition of William Howe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 



 Report on the Petition of John Neufville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302



 Report on Expediency of Appointing a 

 Consul at Copenhagen . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306



 Report of Decree rendered by the 

 National Assembly of France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 



INAUGURAL ADDRESSES ANDMESSAGES .317- 494



Inauguration Address, March 4th, 1801  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 



Message on the Act for the Defence of 

Rivers and Harbors-March, 1808  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 



First Annual Message-December 8th, 1801. . . . . . . . . . . .327 



Second Annual Message-December 15th, 1802  . . . . . . . 340 



Special Message-January 28th, 1802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  349 



Special Message-February 24th, 1803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  350



Third Annual Message-October 17th, 1803  . . . . . . . . . . 351 



Special Message-October 21st, 1803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361



Special Message-November 4th, 1803  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  362



Special Message-November 25th, 1803 . . . . .  . . . . . . .  363



Special Message-December 5th, 1803  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  363



Special Message-January 16th, 1804. . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . 364



Special Message-March 20th 1804  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  366



Fourth Annual Message-November 8th, 1804 . . . . . . . . 366 



Second Inaugural Address-March 4th, 1805 . . . . . . . . . 375 



Fifth Annual Message-December 3d, 1805  . . . . . . . . .  384



Message on Spanish Spoliations -December 6th, 1805  .396 



Special Message-January 13th, 1806 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402



Special Message-January 17th, 1806 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407



Special Message-February 3d, 1806  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  409



Special Message-February 19th, 1806. . . . . .  . . . . . .  409



Special Message-March 20th,1806  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412



Special Message-April 14th, 1806 . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . 413



Sixth Annual Message-December 2d, 1806  . . . . . . . . .414 



Special Message-December 3d, 1806  . . . . . . . . . . . . .426



Special Message-January 22d 1807  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 



Special Message-January 28th, 1807 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .437 



Special Message-January 31st, 1807  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438



Special Message-February 10th, 1807 . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 



Seventh Annual Message-October 27th 1807 . . . . . . . 444 



Special Message-November 23d 1807 . . . . .  . . . . . . 454 



Confidentia l Message-December 7th, 1807 . . . . . . . . 454 



Special Message-December 18th, 1807  . . . . . . . . . . .455 



Special Message-January 20th 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .456 



Special Message-January 30th, 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460 



Special Message-January 30th, 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 



Special Message-February 2d, 1808  . . . . . . . . . . . . .463 



Special Message-February 4th, 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . . .464 



Special Message-February 9th 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 



Special Message-February 15th, 1808 . . . . . .  . . . . . 465 



Special Message-February 19th, 1808 . . . . . . . . . . . .466 



Special Message-February 25th, 1808 . . . . . .  . . . . . 467 



Special Message-March 7th, 1808  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 



Special Message-March 17th, 1808  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 



Special Message-March 28th, 1808  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471



Special Message-March 22d,1808  . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 472 



Eighth Annual Message-November 8th, 1808 . . . . . . 475



Special Message-December 30th, 1808 . . . . . .  . . . .486 



Special Message-January 6th, 1809 . . . . . . . .  . . . . .487



APPENDIX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489-494 



Confidentia l Message Recommend ing a Western 

Exploring Expedition- January 18th, 1803 . . . . . . . . .489





REPORTS AND OPINIONS  WHILE  SECRETARY OF STATE. 



INTRODUCTORY NOTES. 



Under the head of "Reports and Opinions while Secretary of State" are included
Jefferson's Reports to Congress; his Reports to President Washington ; and his
Cabinet Opinions. It seems to have been the practice of Washington to take
written opinions of his Secretaries upon important points arising during his
administrat ion, and the opinions of Jefferson, here published, were given in
reply to questions propounde d and points submitted to him by the President, in
conformity with this practice. These opinions relate to a great variety of
matters connected with the early history of our governmen t, and the principles
of interpretat ion to be applied to the Federal Constitutio n, and will be
found both interesting and valuable. 



Some of these Reports (from page 286 to 310), including the Report on Unclaimed
Lands, the Report on Vermont Nomination s, the Report of Decree Rendered by the
National Assembly of France, etc., were not published in the Congressio nal
edition of 1853 



Jefferson's appointmen t was brought about in the following manner. In August,
1789, while filling the position of American Minister Plenipotent iary to
France, he obtained leave of absence and returned to the United States. He
arrived at Norfolk on November 23d, and on his way to Monticello received from
President Washington a letter offering him the appointmen t of Secretary of
State, at the organizatio n of the Federal Governmen t under the Constitutio n,
which had then been adopted. (See Autobiogra phy, Vol. I, page 160.) His
inclinations were to return to France, to continue representi ng the United
States at that court, as the President gave him the option of either position,
but he finally concluded to accede to the wishes of Washington that he accept a
seat in his cabinet. 



His Reports and Opinions on the Currency; on Weights and Measures; on the
Fisheries; on Commercial Restriction s; on Treaties with Foreign Governmen ts;
and numerous other subjects, all give ample proof of his ability as a
statesman. In 1790 Jefferson accompanie d Washington on a visit to Rhode
Island, after that State had accepted the Federal Constitutio n. In 1791, being
called on by the President for his Opinion on the Act passed by Congress
establishin g a National Bank, he made a written communicat ion, objecting to
such 



 Introducto ry Notes xix 



an institution as unconstitut ional. The bill, however, was approved by
President Washington . While holding office as Secretary of State, Jefferson
disapprove d of many of the measures of Washington's administrat ion,
particularl y of those measures which originated with the Secretary of the
Treasury; Alexander Hamilton. Between Hamilton and Jefferson there were
irreconcila ble differences of opinion on political matters, which caused
constant bickerings in Washington 's first cabinet. Hamilton was the head of
the Federal party and the opposition to the Federalists assumed an organized
form under the auspices of Jefferson. By Jefferson's advice, the opposition
party, which had been called anti-federa list, claimed the name of Republican
s, while their Federal opponents called them Democrats. Jefferson was an
advocate of State sovereignt y and of decentraliz ation. He was strongly
opposed to the leading features of the British Constitutio n, and in cordial
sympathy with the new school of politics which had recently begun to be felt in
the governmen t of France. His five years' residence in France had greatly
strengthen ed him in these views and they more or less affected his treatment
of all questions that came under him as a Cabinet Minister. Hamilton's great
fear, on the other hand, was that the central governmen t under the new
Constitutio n would be too weak, and he favored all measures that tended to
exalt and strengthen the Executive, and to bring the governmen t more in
harmony with that of England. 



The most perplexing questions which occupied Jefferson's attention as Secretary
of State grew out of the war declared by France in 1793 against Holland and
Great Britain. What was the natural policy and what should be insisted upon as
the natural rights of the United States? Upon this question both parties put
forth their whole strength. The Republican s, under Jefferson's lead, mostly
sympathize d with the French, and advocated that privateers be fitted out in
American ports to cruise against British vessels. This policy was opposed by
the Federalists , who advocated peace with all and entangling alliances with
none. Jefferson advocated the propriety of receiving a diplomatic representa
tive from the French Republic. His advice prevailed, and Genet was promptly
sent as Minister. Genet proceeded to fit out privateers, and empower French
consuls in the United States to organize courts of admiralty to condemn prizes.
This led to heated discussions in the cabinet, and finally to the recall of
Genet. Partly from discontent with a position in which he did not feel that he
possessed the absolute confidence of the President, and partly because of the
embarrasse d condition of his private affairs, due mainly to the ravages of
war, Jefferson resigned his seat in the cabinet, December 



xx INTRODUCT ORY NOTES 



31, 1793, and retired to Monticello. He resigned office at a fortunate time for
his reputation. His correspond ence with George Hammond, the English
Plenipotent iary, and Edmond Genet, the French Plenipotentiary, had just been
published in a formidable pamphlet, and Jefferson's letters were so moderate,
conciliator y and just, that they won even the approval of the Federalists .
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, and a confirmed Federalist,
writes in his "Life of Washington " that this correspond ence lessened the
hostility of Jefferson's opponents, without diminishing the attachment of his
friends. 



JEFFERSON 'S WORKS. 1



REPORTS AND OPINIONS WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE. 



Report on the methods for obtaining Fresh Water from Salt. 



The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representa tives
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 experiment s, with considerabl e
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 governmen t of the
United States a faithful account of his art or secret, 



#VOL. III-I# 



2 Jefferson's Works 

to be used by, or within the United States, on their giving to him a reward
suitable to the importance of the discovery, and in the opinion of governmen t,
adequate to his expenses and the time he has devoted to the bringing it into
effect. 



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 precipitatio n 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 seventeent h, and of
Hales, Appleby, Butler, Chapman, Hoffman, and Dore, in the eighteenth; nor was
there anything in 



Official Papers 3 



these methods worthy noting on the present occasion, except the very simple
still contrived extempore by Captain Chapman, and made from such materials as
are to be found on board every ship, great or small; this was a common pot,
with a wooded lid of the usual form; in the centre of which a hole was bored to
receive perpendicu larly, a short wooden tube made with an inch-and-a-half
auger, which perpendicu lar tube received at its top, and at an acute angle,
another tube of wood also, which descended until it joined a third of pewter
made by rolling up a dish and passing it obliquely through a cask of cold
water; with this simple machine he obtained two quarts of fresh water an hour,
and observed that the expense of fuel would be very trifling, if the still was
contrived to stand on the fire along with the ship's boiler. 



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 precipitati ng



4 Jefferson's Works 



its, foreign contents. In 1767, he proposed an extempore still, which, in fact,
was Chapman's only substitutin g a gun-barrel instead of Chapman's pewter tube,
and the hand-pump of the ship to be cut in two obliquely and joined again at an
acute angle, instead of Chapman's wooden tubes bored expressly; or instead of
the wooden lid and upright tube, he proposed a tea-kettle (without its lid or
handle) to be turned bottom upwards over the mouth of the pot by way of
still-head, and a wooden tube leading from the spout to a gun-barrel passing
through a cask of water, the whole luted with equal parts of chalk and meal
moistened with salt-water. With this apparatus of a pot, tea-kettle, and
gunbarrel, the Dolphin, a twenty-gu n ship, in her voyage around the world in
1768, from 56 gallons of seawater and with 9 lbs. of wood and 69 lbs. of
pit-coal made 42 gallons of good fresh water, at the rate of 8 gallons an hour.
The Dorsetshire , in her passage from Gibraltar to Mahon in 1769, made 19
quarts of pure water in f our hours with 10 lbs. of wood, and the Slambal in
1773, between Bombay and Bengal, with the hand-pump , gun-barrel , and a pot of
6 gallons of seawater, made ten quarts of fresh water in three hours. 



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 evaporatio n,
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 



Official Papers 5 



water; he enlarged its bore also, in order to give a free passage to the vapor,
and thereby increase its quantity by lessening the resistance or pressure on
the evaporatin g surface. This last improveme nt was his own; it doubtless
contribute d to the success of his process; and we may suppose the enlargemen t
of the tube to be useful to that point at which the central parts of the vapor
passing through it would begin to escape condensati on. Lord Mulgrave used his
method in his voyage towards the north pole in 1773, making from 34 to 40
gallons of fresh water a day, without any great addition of fuel, as he says. 



M. de Bougainvill e, in his voyage round the world, used very successfull y 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 surrounde d 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. Rittenhous e, President of the American Philosophic al
Society, of Dr. Wistar, professor of chemistry in the college at Philadelphi a,
and Dr. Hutchinson , professor of chemistry in the University of Pennsylvan ia,



6 Jefferson's Works 



to be present at the experiment s. Mr. Isaacs fixed the pot, a small caboose,
with a tin cap and straight tube of tin passing obliquely through a cask of
cold water; he made use of a mixture, the composition of which he did not
explain, and from 24 pints of sea-water, taken up about three miles out of the
Capes of Delaware, at flood-tide, he distilled 22 pints of fresh water in four
hours with 20 lbs. of seasoned pine, which was a little wetted by having lain
in the rain. 



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
contribute d in any and what degree to the success of the operation, it was
thought proper to repeat his experiment under the same circumstan ces exactly,
except the omission of the mixture. Accordingl y, 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. 



Official Papers 7 



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 ½lb. 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 circumstan ces, 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
desideratu m 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 desideratu m is satisfied to a very useful
degree. But though this has been done for 



8 Jefferson's Works 



upwards of thirty years, though its reality has been established by the actual
experience of several vessels which have had recourse to it, yet neither the
fact nor the process is known to the mass of seamen, to whom it would be the
most useful, and for whom it was principally wanted. The Secretary of State is
therefore of opinion that since the subject has now been brought under
observatio n, it should be made the occasion of disseminati ng its knowledge
generally and effectually among the seafaring citizens of the United States.
The following is one of the many methods which might be proposed for doing
this: Let the clearance f or every vessel sailing from the ports of the United
States be printed on a paper, in the back whereof shall be a printed account of
the essays which have been made for obtaining fresh from salt-water, mentioning
shortly those which have been unsuccessf ul, and more fully those which have
succeeded, describing the methods which have been found to answer for
constructin g extempore stills of such implements as are generally on board of
every vessel, with a recommend ation in all cases where they shall have
occasion to resort to this expedient for obtaining water, to publish the result
of their trial in some gazette on their return to the United States, or to
communicat e it for publication to the office of the Secretary of State, in
order that others may, by their success, be encouraged to make similar trials,
and be benefited by any improveme nts or new ideas which may occur to them in
practice. 



Official Papers 9 



Opinion on the proposition for establishin g a Woollen Manufactor y in
Virginia. 



The House of Delegates of Virginia seemed disposed to adventure £2,500 for the
encourage ment of this undertakin g, but the Senate did not concur. By their
returning to the subject, however, at a subsequent session, and wishing more
specific proposition s, 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
unsuccessf ul experiment s heretofore may have suggested this caution. 



Suppose the proposition s 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, let the State pay
for the first necessary purposes then to 

occur .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         
£1,000  

Let it pay him a stipend of £100 a year for 

the  first three years  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       300
 

Let it give him a bounty (suppose one-third)  

on every yard of woollen cloth equal to good  

plains, which he shall weave for five years, not  

exceeding £250 a year (20,000 yards) the four  

first years, and £200 the fifth .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         1,200 



                                                             £2,500 



10 Jefferson's Works 



To every workman whom he shall import, let them give, after he shall have
worked in the manufactor y 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
continuanc e 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 interventio n seems necessary till the contracts shall be
concluded. It is presumed he would not like to be embarrasse d afterwards with
the details of superinten dence. Suppose, in his answer to the Governor of
Virginia, he should say that the undertaker being in Europe, more specific
proposition s 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 establishme
nt, and yet guard them against an unproducti ve 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, consequent ly that a discretiona ry 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 



Official Papers 11 

than those before explained, and that the contracts being once concluded, his
distance and other occupation s would oblige him to leave the execution open to
the Executive of the State. 



The Report on Copper Coinage, communicat ed to the House of Representa tives,
April 15th, 1790. 



April 14, 1790. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of
Representa tives, the letter of John H. Mitchell, reciting certain proposals
for supplying the United States with copper coinage, has had the same under
considerati on, according to instruction s, and begs leave to report thereon as
follows: 



The person who wishes to undertake the supply of a copper coinage, sets forth,
that the superiority of his apparatus and process for coining, enables him to
furnish a coinage better and cheaper than can be done by any country or person
whatever; that his dies are engraved by the first artist in that line in
Europe; that his apparatus for striking the edge at the same blow with the
faces, is new, and singularly ingenious; that he coins by a press on a new
principle, and worked by a fire-engine , more regularly than can be done by
hand; that he will deliver any quantity of coin, of any size and device, of
pure, unalloyed copper, wrapped in paper and packed in casks, ready for
shipping, for fourteen pence sterling the pound. 



The Secretary of State has before been apprized, 



12 Jefferson's Works 



from other sources of information , of the great improveme nts made by this
undertaker , in sundry arts; he is acquainted with the artist who invented the
method of striking the edge, and both faces of the coin at one blow; he has
seen his process and coins, and sent to the former Congress some specimens of
them, with certain offers from him, before he entered into the service of the
present undertaker , (which specimens he takes the liberty of now submitting to
the inspection of the House, as proofs of the superiority of this method of
coinage, in gold and silver as well as copper). 



He is, therefore, of opinion, that the undertaker , aided by that artist, and
by his own excellent machines, is truly in a condition to furnish coin in a
state of higher perfection than has ever yet been issued by any nation; that
perfection in the engraving is among the greatest safeguards against
counterfeit s, because engravers of the first class are few, and elevated by
their rank in their art, far above the base and dangerous business of
counterfeit ing. That the perfection of coins will indeed disappear, after they
are for some time worn among other pieces, and especially where the figures are
rather faintly relieved, as on those of this artist; yet, their high finishing,
while new, is not the less a guard against counterfeit s, because these, if
carried to any extent, may be ushered into circulation new, also, and
consequent ly, may be compared with genuine coins in the same state; that,
therefore, whenever the United 



Official Papers 13 



States shall be disposed to have a coin of their own, it will be desirable to
aim at this kind of perfection. That this cannot be better effected, than by
availing themselves, if possible, of the services of the undertaker , and of
this artist, whose excellent methods and machines are said to have abridged, as
well as perfected, the operations of coinage. These operations, however, and
their expense, being new, and unknown here, he is unable to say whether the
price proposed be reasonable or not. He is also uncertain whether, instead of
the larger copper coin, the Legislature might not prefer a lighter one of
billon, or mixed metal, as is practised, with convenienc e, by several other
nations-a specimen of which kind of coinage is submitted to their inspection. 



But the proposition s under consideration suppose that the work is to be
carried on in a foreign country, and that the implements are to remain the
property of the undertaker ; which conditions, in his opinion, render them
inadmissibl e, for these reasons: 



Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignt y. To transfer its exercise
into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign. 



Its transportat ion across the ocean, besides the ordinary dangers of the sea,
would expose it to acts of piracy, by the crews to whom it would be confided,
as well as by others apprized of its passage. 



In time of war, it would offer to the enterprises of an enemy, what have been
emphaticall y called the sinews of war. 



14 Jefferson's Works 



If the war were with the nation within whose territory the coinage is, the
first act of war, or reprisal, might be to arrest this operation, with the
implements, and materials coined and uncoined, to be used at their discretion. 



The reputation and principles of the present undertaker are safeguards against
the abuses of a coinage, carried on in a foreign country, where no checks could
be provided by the proper sovereign, no regulations established , no police, no
guard exercised; in short, none of the numerous cautions hitherto thought
essential at every mint; but in hands less entitled to confidence, these will
become dangers. We may be secured, indeed, by proper experiment s as to the
purity of the coin delivered us according to contract, but we cannot be secured
against that which, though less pure, shall be struck in the genuine die, and
protected against the vigilance of Governmen t, till it shall have entered into
circulation. 



We lose the opportunit y of calling in and re-coining the clipped money in
circulation, or we double our risk by a double transportat ion. 



We lose, in like manner, the resource of coining up our household plate in the
instant of great distress. 



We lose the means of forming artists to continue the works, when the common
accidents of mortality shall have deprived us of those who began them. 



In fine, the carrying on a coinage in a foreign country, as far as the
Secretary knows, is without example; and general example is weighty authority. 



Official Papers 15 



He is, therefore, of opinion, on the whole, that a mint, whenever established ,
should be established at home; that the superiority , the merit, and means of
the undertaker , will suggest him as the proper person to be engaged in the
establishme nt and conduct of a mint, on a scale which, relinquishi ng nothing
in the perfection of the coin, shall be duly proportion ed to our purposes. 



And, in the meanwhile, he is of opinion the present proposals should be
declined. 



Opinion on the question whether the Senate has the right to negative the grade
of persons appointed by the Executive to fill Foreign Missions. 



NEW YORK, April 24, 1790. 



The constitutio n having declared that the President shall nominate and, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassador s, other
public ministers, and consuls, the President desired my opinion whether the
Senate has a right to negative the grade he may think it expedient to use in a
foreign mission as well as the person to be appointed. 



I think the Senate has no right to negative the grade. 



The constitutio n has divided the powers of governmen t into three branches,
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct magistracy.



16 Jefferson's Works 



The Legislative it has given completely to the Senate and House of Representa
tives. It has declared that the Executive powers shall be vested in the
President, submitting special articles of it to a negative by the Senate, and
it has vested the Judiciary power in the courts of justice, with certain
exceptions also in favor of the Senate. 



The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It
belongs, then, to the head of that department , except as to such portions of
it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed
strictly. 



The Constitutio n itself indeed has taken care to circumscri be this one within
very strict limits; for it gives the nomination of the foreign agents to the
President; the appointmen ts to him and the Senate jointly, and the commissioni
ng to the President. 



This analysis calls our attention the strict import of each term. To nominate
must be to propose. Appointmen t seems that act of the will which constitutes
or makes the agent, and the commission is the public evidence of it. But there
are still other acts previous to, these not specially enumerated in the
constitutio n, to wit: 1st. The destination of a mission to the particular
country where the public service calls for it, and second the character or
grade to be employed in it. The natural order of all these is first,
destination ; second, grade; third, nomination; fourth, appointmen t; fifth,
commission. If appointmen t does not comprehen d the neighborin g 



Official Papers 17 



acts of nomination or commission, (and the Constitutio n says it shall not, by
giving them exclusively to the President,) still less can it pretend to
comprehen d those previous and more remote, of destination and grade. 



The Constitutio n, analysing the three last, shows they do not comprehen d the
two first. The fourth is the only one it submits to the Senate, shaping it into
a right to say that "A or B is unfit to be appointed." Now, this cannot
comprehen d a right to say that "A or B is indeed fit to be appointed," but the
grade fixed on is not the fit one to employ, or, "our connection s with the
country of his destination are not such as to call for any mission." 



The Senate is not supposed by the constitutio n to be acquainted with the
concerns of the Executive department . It was not intended that these should be
communicat ed to them, nor can they therefore be qualified to judge of the
necessity which calls for a mission to any particular place, or of the
particular grade, more or less marked, which special and secret circumstan ces
may call for. All this is left to the President. They are only to see that no
unfit person be employed. 



It may be objected that the Senate may by continual negatives on the person, do
what amounts to a negative on the grade, and so, indirectly, defeat this right
of the President. But this would be a breach of trust; an abuse of power
confided to the Senate, of which that body cannot be supposed capable. So 



#VOL. III-2# 

18 Jefferson's Works 



the President has a power to convoke the Legislature , and the Senate might
defeat that power by refusing to come. This equally amounts to a negative on
the power of convoking. Yet nobody will say they possess such a negative, or
would be capable of usurping it by such oblique means. If the Constitutio n had
meant to give the Senate a negative on the grade or destination , as well as
the person, it would have said so in direct terms, and not left it to be
effected by a sidewind. It could never mean to give them the use of one power
through the abuse of another. 



Opinion upon the validity of a grant made by the State of Georgia to certain
companies o f individuals , of a tract of country whereof the Indian right had
never been extinguishe d, with power to such individuals to extinguish the
Indian right. 



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 extinguishi ng the Indian rights under the
authority of that Governmen t, 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 



Official Papers 19 



appropriat e to themselves as prime occupants what was before common. A
practice introduced since the discovery of America, authorizes them to go
further, and to fix the limits which they assume to themselves; and it seems,
for the common good, to admit this right to a moderate and reasonable extent. 



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. Consequent ly, 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,
fundamenta l 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 governmen t. 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 

20 Jefferson's Works 



enter into any treaty, alliance or confederati on. No State shall, without the
consent of Congress, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into
any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage
in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of
delay." 



These paragraphs of the Constitutio n, declaring that the general governmen t
shall have, and that the particular ones shall not have, the right of war and
treaty, are so explicit that no commentar y can explain them further, nor can
any explain them away. Consequent ly, Georgia, possessing the exclusive right
to acquire the native title, but having relinquishe d the means of doing it to
the general governmen t, 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 governmen t, 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 governmen t 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 explanation s should be
asked and time and color given them to tread back their steps before coercion
is held up to their view. 



Official Papers 21 



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



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 governmen t. 



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 governmen t of Georgia, in the first moment, that while the general
governmen t shall be expecting and ­consideri ng her explanation s, 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 superfluou s to send some person to the Indians
interested, to explain to them the views of governmen t, and to watch with
their aid the territory in question.



Opinion in favor of the resolutions of May 21st, 1790, directing that, in all
cases where payment had not been already made, the debts due to the soldiers of
Virginia and North Carolina, should be paid to the original claimants or their
attorneys, and not to their assignees. 



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



22 Jefferson's Works 



ascertained , and a list of these balances made out, this list became known to
certain persons before the soldiers themselves had information of it, and those
persons, by unfair means, as is said, and f or very inadequate considerati ons,
obtained assignment s from many of the soldiers of whatever sum should be due
to them from the public, without specifying the amount. 



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 representa tives, 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
constitutio n, which condemn retrospecti ve laws; and are, therefore, not
worthy of the President's approbatio n. 



I agree in an almost unlimited condemnati on of retrospecti ve laws. The few
instances of wrong which they redress are so overweighe d 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. 



Official Papers 23 



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 Maintenanc e and Champerty. The
Law-merch ants, however, which is permitted to have course between merchants,
allows the assignment of a bill of exchange for the convenienc e 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 transferre d by
assignment . In all other cases the assignment of a debt is void. 



The debts from the United States to the soldiers 



24 Jefferson's Works 



of Virginia, not having been put into either of these forms, the assignment s
of them were void in law. 



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 assignment s 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 retrospecti ve. They only direct their 



Official Papers 25 



treasurer not to give validity to an assignment which had it not before, by
payments to the assignee until he in whom the legal property still is, shall
order it in such a form as to show he is apprized of the sum he is to part
with, and its readiness to be paid into his or any other hands, and that he
chooses, notwithsta nding, to acquiesce under the fraud which has been
practised on him. In that case he has only to execute before two justices a
power of attorney to the same person, expressing the specific sum of his
demand, and it is to be complied with. Actual payment, in this case, is an
important act. If made to the assignee, it would put the burthen of proof and
process on the original owner. If made to that owner, it puts it on the
assignee, who must then come forward and show that his transaction has been
that of an honest man. 



Governmen t 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 relinquish
ment of it is solicited only to support a fraud. 



I think the resolutions , therefore, merit approbatio n. I have before
professed my incompeten ce to 



26 Jefferson's Works 



say what are the laws of North Carolina on this subject. They, like Virginia,
adopted the English laws in the gross. These laws forbid in general the buying
and selling of debts, and their policy in this is so wise that I presume they
had not changed it till the contrary be shown. 



Plan for establishin g uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the
United States. Communicat ed to the House of Representa tives, July 13, 1790. 



New York, July 4, 1790. 

SIR:­In obedience to the order of the House of Representa tives 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, unavoidabl y, 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 imperfectio ns 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°, 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° as
being a middle term between the equator and both poles, and a term which
consequent ly might unite the nations of both hemisphere s, appeared to me so
well chosen, and so just, that I did not hesitate a moment to prefer it to that
of 38°. It became necessary, of course, to conform all my calculation s to that
standard­a n operation which has been retarded by my other occupation s. 



Official Papers 27



These circumstan ces 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 proceeding s 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 communicat e 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 Representa tives,
to prepare and report a proper plan or plans for establishin g 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 circumfere nce would furnish an invariable
measure; but no one of its circles, great or small, is accessible to admeasure
ment through all its parts, and the various trials to measure definite portions
of them, have been of such various results as to show there is no dependenc e
on that operation for certainty. 



28 Jefferson's Works 



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, constitutin g 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 determinat e length, to
which all others may be referred to as to a standard. 



But even a pendulum is not without its uncertainti es. 



1. The difficulty of ascertainin g, 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 inaccessibl e to the measure, are sources of considerabl e uncertaint
y. 



2. Both theory and experience prove that, to pre



Official Papers 29 



serve its isochronis m, it must be shorter towards the equator, and longer
towards the poles. 



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 temperatur e 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 uncertainti es which respect the centre of
oscillation, it has been proposed by Mr. Leslie, an ingenious artist of
Philadelphi a, 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
displaceme nt is so infinitely minute, then, that we may 



30 Jefferson's Works 



consider the centre of oscillation, for all practical purposes, as residing at
two-thirds of the length from the centre of suspension . The distance between
these two centres might be easily and accurately ascertained in practice. But
the whole rod is better for a standard than any portion of it, because sensibly
defined at both its extremities. 



2. The uncertaint y 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°, 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 circumstan ces which may very possibly give
it some effect. This parallel is distinguish ed 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° of latitude, and that for 31°,
our other extreme, is to be examined. 



The second pendulum for 45° of latitude, according 



Official Papers 31 



to Sir Isaac Newton's computatio n, must be of (2) 39.14912 inches English
measure; and a rod, to vibrate in the same time, must be of the same length
between the centres of suspension and oscillation; and, consequent ly, its
whole length 58.7 (or, more exactly, 58.72368) inches. This is longer than the
rod which shall vibrate seconds in the 31° of latitude, by about 1/679 part of
its whole length; a difference so minute, that it might be neglected, as
insensible, for the common purposes of life, but, in cases requiring perfect
exactness, the second rod, found by trial of its vibrations in any part of the
United States, may be corrected by computatio n for the (3) latitude of the
place, and so brought exactly to the standard of 45°. 



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 temperatur e, is
the fourth source of uncertaint y 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 hundredth s of an inch. This may be
avoided by adjusting and preserving the standard in a cellar, or other place,
the temperatur e of which never varies. Iron is named for this purpose, because
the least expansible of the metals. 



32 Jefferson's Works 



5. The practical difficulty resulting from the effect of the machinery and
moving power is very inconsidera ble 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 inconvenie nces, 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°, in the level of the ocean, and in a cellar, or
other place, the temperatur e 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 Representa tives.



Official Papers 33 



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,¹ has obtained such general approbatio n, 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 denominati ons. Is it in contemplati on
with the House of Representa tives to extend a like improveme nt 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, unquestion ably,
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 computatio n for the most part. Or, is it the opinion of the
Representa tives that the difficulty of changing the established habits of a
whole nation opposes an insuperabl e bar to this improveme nt? Under this
uncertaint y, 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 See Vol. I. p. 162. VOL. III-3# 



34 Jefferson's Works 



time, when the public mind may be supposed to have become familiarized to it. 

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
mathematici ans 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 circumstan ces 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. 



Official Papers 35 



MEASURES OF LENGTH. 



The measures of length in use among us are: 



The league of 3 miles,  

The mile of 8 furlongs,  

The furlong of 40 poles or perches,  

The pole or perch of 5 ½ yards,  

The fathom of 2 yards,  

The ell of a yard and quarter,  

The yard of 3 feet,  

The foot of 12 inches, and  

The inch of 10 lines. 



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 instrument s, prepared by the ingenious Mr.
Graham; that the Royal Society had had a brass rod made pursuant to their
experiment s, 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 



36 Jefferson's Works 



this standard is. This, however, is supplied by the evidence of the second
pendulum, which, according to the authority before quoted, is, at London,
39.1682 English inches, and, consequent ly, the second rod there is of 58.7523
of the same inches. When we shall have found, then, by actual trial, the second
rod for 45° by adding the difference of their computed length, to wit:
287/10,000 of an inch, or rather 3/10 of a line (which in practice will
endanger less error than an attempt at so minute a fraction as the ten
thousandth parts of an inch) we shall have the second rod of London, or a true
measure of 58 ¾ English inches. Or, to shorten the operation, without varying
the result, 



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



10 lines an inch,  

12 inches a foot,  

3 feet a yard,  

3 feet 9 inches an ell,  

6 feet a fathom,  

5 ½yards a perch or pole,  

40 poles or perches a furlong,  

8 furlongs a mile, 

 3 miles a league. 



SUPERFICI AL MEASURES. 



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. 



Official Papers 37 



MEASURES OF CAPACITY. 



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



The gill, four of which make a pint.  

Two pints make a quart. 

Two quarts a pottle. 

Two pottles a gallon.  

Two gallons a peck, dry measure. 

Eight gallons make a measure called a firkin, in liquid substances , and a
bushel, dry.  

Two firkins, or bushels, make a measure called a rundlet or kilderkin, liquid,
and a strike, dry.  Two kilderkins, or strikes, make a measure called a barrel,
liquid, and a coomb, dry; this last term being ancient and little used.  

Two barrels, or coombs, make a measure called a hogshead, liquid, or a quarter,
dry; each being the quarter of a ton.  

A hogshead and a third make a tierce, or third of a ton.  

Two hogsheads make a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and  

Two pipes make a ton. 



But no one of these measures is of a determinat e 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-

 224 and 1792 cubic inches, according to the standard wine gallon preserved at
Guildhall. 



38 Jefferson's Works 



231 and 1848, according to the statute of 5th of Anne.  

264.8 and 2118.4, according to the ancient Rumored  quart, of 1228, examined by
the committee. 265.5 and 2124, according to three standard bushels preserved in
the Exchequer, to wit: one of Henry VII., without a rim; one dated 1091,
supposed for 1591, or 1601, and one dated 1601. 266.25 and 2130, according to
the ancient Rumored  gallon of 122 8, examined by the committee. 268.75 and
2150, according to the Winchester bushel, as declared by statute 13, 14,
William III., which has been the model for some of the grain States.  

271, less 2 spoonfuls, and 2168, less 16 spoonfuls, according to a standard
gallon of Henry VII., and another dated 1601, marked E. E., both in the
Exchequer.  

271 and 2168, according to a standard gallon in the Exchequer, dated 1601,
marked E., and called the corn gallon.  

272 and 2176, according to the three standard corn gallons last mentioned, as
measured in 1688, by an artist for the Commission ers of the Excise, generally
used in the seaport towns, and by mercantile people, and thence introduced into
some of the grain States. 



Official Papers 39 



277.18 and 2217.44, as established for the measure of coal by the statute 12
Anne.  

278 and 2224, according to the standard bushel of Henry VII., with a copper
rim, in the Exchequer.  

278.4 and 2227.2, according to two standard pints of 1601 and 1602, in the
Exchequer.  

280 and 2240, according to the standard quart of 1601, in the Exchequer.  

282 and 2256, according to the standard gallon for beer and ale in the
Treasury. 



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 ½ 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 



40 Jefferson's Works 



there have been any, and what, alterations of these measures by the laws of the
particular States. 



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



The wine gallon, whether of 224 or 231 cubic inches, may be altogether
disregarde d, 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 distinguish ed 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 convenienc e, 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 



Official Papers 41 



and weights, as will be shown hereafter. It may be added, in favor of this, as
a medium measure, that eight of the standard, or statute measures before
enumerated , are below this term, and nine above it. 



The measures to be made for use, being four sided, with rectangula r sides and
bottom.  

The pint will be 3 inches square, and 3 4 inches deep;  

The quart 3 inches square, and 7 ½ inches deep;  

The pottle 3 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 412, 5, and 6 inches;  

The gallon 6 inches square, and 7 ½ inches deep, or 5, 6, and 9 inches;  

The peck 6, 9, and 10 inches;  

The half bushel 12 inches square, and 7 ½ inches deep; and  

The bushel 12 inches square, and 15 inches deep, or 9, 15, and 16 inches. 

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 -



A gallon of 270 cubic inches;  

The gallon to contain 2 pottles; 



42 Jefferson's Works 



The pottle 2 quarts;  

The quart 2 pints;  

The pint 4 gills;  

Two gallons to make a peck;  

Eight gallons a bushel or firkin;  

Two bushels, or firkin, a strike or kilderkin;  

Two strikes, or kilderkins, a coomb or barrel;  

Two coombs, or barrels, a quarter or hogshead;  

A hogshead and a third one tierce; 

Two hogsheads a pipe, butt, or puncheon; and  

Two pipes a ton.  

And let all measures of capacity of dry subjects be stricken with a straight
strike. 



WEIGHTS. 



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



In the Avoirdupoi s series: 



The pound is divided into 16 ounces;  

The ounce into 16 drachms;  

The drachm into 4 quarters. 



In the Troy series: 



The pound is divided into 12 ounces;  

The ounce (according to the subdivision of the apothecarie s) into 8 drachms;  

The drachm into 3 scruples;  

The scruple into 20 grains.  

According to the subdivision for gold and silver, 



Official Papers 43 



the ounce is divided into twenty pennyweig hts, and the pennyweig ht into
twenty-fou r grains. 



So that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite to
make the pound avoirdupoi s; of course the weight of the pound troy is to that
of the pound avoirdupoi s 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 ½ 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. 



44 Jefferson's Works 



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 avoirdupoi s. 

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 avoirdupoi s 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 correspond ence is that between weights and measures. For
1000 ounces avoirdupoi s of pure water fill a cubic foot, with mathematic al
exactness. 



What circumstan ces of the times, or purposes of barter or commerce, called for
this combinatio n of weights and measures, with the subjects to be exchanged or
purchased, are not now to be ascertained . But a triple set of exact proportion
als representi ng weights, measures, and the things to be weighed and measured,
and a relation so integral between weights and solid measures, must have 



Official Papers 45 



been the result of design and scientific calculation, and not a mere
coincidence of hazard. It proves that the dry and wet measures, the heavy and
light weights, must have been original parts of the system they compose-co
ntrary to the opinion of the committee of 1757, 1758, who thought that the
avoirdupoi s weight was not an ancient weight of the kingdom, nor ever even a
legal weight, but during a single year of the reign of Henry VIII.; and,
therefore, concluded, otherwise than will be here proposed, to suppress it
altogether. Their opinion was founded chiefly on the silence of the laws as to
this weight. But the harmony here developed in the system of weights and
measures, of which the avoirdupoi s makes an essential member, corroborat ed by
a general use, from very high antiquity, of that, or of a nearly similar weight
under another (6.) name, seem stronger proofs that this is legal weight, than
the mere silence of the written laws is of the contrary. 



Be this as it may, it is in such general use with us, that, on the principle of
popular convenienc e, its higher denominati ons, at least, must be preserved.
It is by the avoirdupoi s pound and ounce that our citizens have been used to
buy and sell. But the smaller subdivision s 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 pennyweig hts and grains troy weight, and are not in the
habit of using the pounds and ounces of that series. It would be for their
convenienc e, then, 



46 Jefferson's Works 



to suppress the pound and ounce troy, and the drachm and quarter avoirdupoi s;
and to form into one series the avoirdupoi s pound and ounce, and the troy
pennyweig ht and grain. The avoirdupoi s ounce contains 18 pennyweig hts 5 ½
grains troy weight. Divide it, then, into 18 pennyweig hts, and the pennyweig
ht, as heretofore, into 24 grains, and the new pennyweig ht will contain
between a third and a quarter of a grain more than the present troy pennyweig
ht; or, more accurately, it will be to that as 875 to 864 a difference not to
be noticed, either in money or medicine, below the denominati on of an ounce. 



But it will be necessary to refer these weights to a determinat e mass of some
substance, the specific gravity of which is invariable. Rain water is such a
substance, and may be referred to everywher e, and through all time. It has
been found by accurate experiment s that a cubic foot of rain water weighs 1000
ounces avoirdupoi s, 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
temperatur e of air; as heat, by increasing its volume, lessens its specific
gravity. The cellar of uniform temperatur e is best for this also. 



Official Papers 47 



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 temperatur e;
that the series of weights of the United States shall consist of pounds,
ounces, pennyweig hts, and grains; whereof  

24 grains shall be one pennyweig ht;  

18 pennyweig hts one ounce;  1

6 ounces one pound. 



COINS. 



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. 



48 Jefferson's Works 



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 pennyweig ht, 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. 



Official Papers 49 



The unit of measure is still that which must give law through the whole system;
and from whatever unit we set out, the coincidence s 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. 



MEASURES OF LENGTH. 



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.           

Let the foot be divided into 10 inches;  

The inch into 10 lines;  

The line into 10 points;  

Let 10 feet make a decad;  

10 decads one rood;  

10 roods a furlong;  

10 furlongs a mile. 



SUPERFICI AL MEASURES. 



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 



#VOL. III-4# 



50 Jefferson's Works 



the rood be equal to a square, every side of which is 100 feet. This will be
6.483 English feet less than the English (7.) rood every way, and 1311 square
feet less in its whole contents; that is to say, about one-eighth; in which
proportion, also, 4 roods will be less than the present acre. 



MEASURES OF CAPACITY. 



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. 



Let the bushel be divided into 10 pottles;  

Each pottle into 10 demi-pints;  

Each demi-pint into 10 metres, which will be of a cubic inch each.  

Let 10 bushels be a quarter, and 

10 quarters a last, or double ton. 



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



The pottle 5 inches square and 4 inches deep;  

The demi-pint 2 inches square, and 2 ½ inches deep;  

The metre, an inch cube. 



Official Papers 51 



WEIGHTS. 



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:




The double scruple into 10 carats;  

The carat into 10 minims or demi-grain s;  

The minim into 10 mites;  

Let 10 ounces make a pound;  

10 pounds a stone;  

16 stones a kental;  

10 kentals a hogshead;



COINS. 



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 unchangea ble in their
nature, (as is the 



52 Jefferson's Works 



length of a rod vibrating seconds, and the weight of a definite mass of rain
water,) will themselves be unchangea ble. These standards, too, are such as to
be accessible to all persons, in all times and places. The measures and weights
derived from them fall in so nearly with some of those now in use, as to
facilitate their introductio n; and being arranged in decimal ratio, they are
within the calculation of every one who possesses the first elements of
arithmetic, and of easy comparison , both for foreigners and citizens, with the
measures, weights, and coins of other countries. 



A gradual introductio n would lessen the inconvenie nces which might attend too
sudden a substitutio n, even of an easier for a more difficult system. After a
given term, for instance, it might begin in the custom-hou ses, where the
merchants would become familiarized to it. After a further term, it might be
introduced into all legal proceeding s, and merchants and traders in foreign
commoditie s might be required to use it in their dealings with one another.
After a still further term, all other description s of people might receive it
into common use. Too long a postponeme nt, on the other hand, would increase
the difficulties of its reception with the increase of our population. 



Appendix, containing illustration s and developmen ts of some passages of the
preceding report. 



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



Official Papers 53 



call the distance between the centres of suspension and of the bob, 2 x 19.575,
or 2d, and the radius of the bob = r; then 2d : r :: r : rr/2d and 2/5 of this
last proportion al expresses the displaceme nt of the centre of oscillation, to
wit : 2rr/5X2d = rr/2d Two inches have been proposed as a proper diameter for
such a bob. In that case r will be= 1. inch, and rr/5d=1/97 87 inches. 



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 displaceme nt 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 displaceme nt 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 displaceme nt 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° 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 calculation s as a middle term, and gives us 36 pouces 8.428
lignes = 39.1491 inches. This length for the pendulum of 45° 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: 



54 Jefferson's Works 



504:257::72 pouces to a 4th proportion al, which will be 36.71428 pouces=39.
1619 inches, the length of the pendulum for latitude 48° 50'. The difference
between this and the pendulum for 45° is .0113 of an inch; so that the pendulum
for 45° would be estimated, according to Mairan, at 39.1619-.01 13= 39.1506
inches, almost precisely the same with Newton's computatio n herein adopted. 



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



                 Pieds.                  Lignes.                  Pieds.       
          Lignes. 



        30° -            3 -                 7.948                 42° -       
    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: 2150039. 



(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: 



Official Papers 55 



                        Feet.                  Equivalent in English measure.  
        

        The foot,        1.                         11.744736                
about 1/48 less          .                                €                 
.978728 feet,        €         than the English foot.  



        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 side        of 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 ½ the                                            
                           German mile. 



2. SUPERFICI AL 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. 



56 Jefferson's Works 



                         Bushels.                  Cub. Inches. 



The pottle, . . .        1 .                          162.005, about1/6 more
than the English pottle.



                                                 1620.055068 62  

The bushel, . .         1.. .                         9375318684 14884352 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.                 Avoirdupoi s.                 Troy. 



Mite,                 .00001        .        .        .        ..         .041
grains,                                                                   about
1/5 less than the English mite. 



Minim, or                                                         .4101  about
1/5 less than          demi-grain,                 .0001        .        .     
  .        .        .         half grain troy.                                 
                                        

Carat, .                . .001        .        .        .        ..        
.4101, about 1/40                                                              
               more than the carat troy. 



Double                                   .        .         .         41.017,
about 1/40 more than

scruple, €                 .01.                                               
2 scruples troy.                                                          

Ounce,                .1                 9375318684 148                 
410.1701924 31                                                  €         84352
oz.           €             €           .85452 oz.                             
                                     about 1/16 less than the ounce avoirdupoi
s. 



Pound,                1.                  9.375                                
 .712101 lb.,                                                   € .5859574177
59 lb.€€            about 1/4 less                                             
                                        than the pound troy.  



Stone,                        10                  93.753oz.                    
    7.121 about 1/4                                                            
    € 5.8595 lb.                €     less than the                            
                                        English stone of 8 lbs. avoirdupoi s. 



Official Papers 57 



Kental,                          100.                   937.531 oz.            
                  71.21 about 4/10                                             
    €         58.5957 lb.                            €   less than the         
                                                         English kental of
100lbs. avoirdupoi s. 



Hogshead,                         1000.                   9375.318 oz.         
     712.101                                                                   
        €  585.9574 lb.                 €



5. COINS. 



                         Dollars. Troy grains. 



The mill, .                 001 .                                  375.98934306
pure silver.  



The cent, .                 01                  Dollar, 1.          
34.18084937 alloy.  



The dime, .                 1                   Eagle, 10.         410.1701924
3 



Postscript. 



January 10, 1791  

It is scarcely necessary to observe that the measures, weights, and coins,
proposed in the preceding report, will be derived altogether from mechanical
operations, viz.: A rod, vibrating seconds, divided into five equal parts, one
of these sub-divide d, and multiplied decimally, for every measure of length,
surface, and capacity, and these last filled with water  to determine the
weights and coins. The arithmetica l estimates in the report were intended only
to give an idea of what the new measures, weights, and coins, would be nearly,
when compared with the old. The length of the standard or second rod,
therefore, was assumed from that of the pendulum; and as there has been small
differences in the estimates of the pendulum by different persons, 



58 Jefferson's Works 



that of Sir Isaac Newton was taken, the highest authority the world has yet
known. But, if even he has erred, the measures, weights, and coins proposed,
will not be an atom the more or less. In cubing the new foot, which was
estimated at .978728 of an English foot, or 11.744736 English inches, an
arithmetica l error of an unit happened in the fourth column of decimals, and
was repeated in another line in the sixth column, so as to make the result one
ten thousandth and one millionth of a foot too much. The thousandth part of
this error (about one ten millionth of a foot) consequent ly fell on the metre
of measure, the ounce weight, and the unit of money. In the last it made a
difference of about the twenty-fift h part of a grain Troy, in weight, or the
ninety-thir d of a cent in value. As it happened, this error was on the
favorable side, so that the detection of it approximat es our estimate of the
new unit exactly that much nearer to the old, and reduces the difference
between them to 34, instead of 38 hundredth s of a grain Troy; that is to say,
the money unit instead of 375.64 Troy grains of pure silver, as established
heretofore, will now be 375.9893430 6 grains, as far as our knowledge of the
length of the second pendulum enables us to judge; and the current of
authorities since Sir Isaac Newton's time, gives reason to believe that his
estimate is more probably above than below the truth, consequently future
corrections of it will bring the estimate of the new unit still nearer to the
old. 



Official Papers 59 



The numbers in which the arithmetica l error before mentioned showed itself in
the table, at the end of the report, have been rectified, and the table
re-printed.  



The head of superficial measures in the last part of the report, is thought to
be not sufficiently developed. It is proposed that the rood of land, being 100
feet square, (and nearly a quarter of the present acre,) shall be the unit of
land measure. This will naturally be divided into tenths and hundredth s, the
latter of which will be a square decad. Its multiples will also, of course, be
tens, which may be called double acres, and hundreds, which will be equal to a
square furlong each. The surveyor's chain should be composed of 100 links of
one foot each. 



Opinion upon the question whether the President should veto the Bill, declaring
that the seat of governmen t shall be transferre d to the Potomac, in the year
1790. 



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



60 Jefferson's Works 



of the President, that the Constitutio n has given to the two houses of
Congress the exclusive right to adjourn themselves; that the will of the
President mixed with theirs in a decision of this kind, would be an inoperative
ingredient, repugnant to the Constitutio n, and that he ought not to permit
them to part, in a single instance, with their constitutio nal rights;
consequent ly, that he ought to negative the bill.



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-governmen t. 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 



Official Papers 61 



of governing itself, and, consequent ly, of fixing its own times and places of
meeting, so far as it has not been abridged by the law of those who employ
them, that is to say, by the Constitutio n. This act manifestly considers them
as possessing this right of course, and therefore has nowhere given it to them.
In the several different passages where it touches this right, it treats it as
an existing thing, not as one called into existence by them. To evince this,
every passage of the Constitutio n shall be quoted, where the right of
adjournme nt is touched; and it will be seen that no one of them pretends to
give that right; that, on the contrary, every one is evidently introduced
either to enlarge the right where it would be too narrow, to restrain it where,
in its natural and full exercise, it might be too large, and lead to inconvenie
nce, to defend it from the latitude of its own phrases, where these were not
meant to comprehen d it; or to provide for its exercise by others, when they
cannot exercise it themselves. 



"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 



62 Jefferson's Works 



members, and, in the meantime, to adjourn from day to day. This clause, then,
does not pretend to give to a majority a right which it knew that majority
would have of themselves, but to a number less than a majority, a right to
which it knew that lesser number could not have of themselves. 



"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 inconvenie nt. It was necessary, therefore, to keep them together by
restraining their natural right of deciding on separate times and places, and
by requiring a concurrenc e of will. 



But, as it might happen that obstinacy, or a difference of object, might
prevent this concurrenc e, it goes on to take from them, in that instance, the
right of adjournme nt altogether, and to transfer it to another, by declaring,
Art. 2, Sec. 3, that "in case of disagreeme nt between the two houses, with
respect to the time of adjournme nt, 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 adjournme nt, which it was known they would have without that gift,
but to restrain or abrogate the right it was known they 



Official Papers 63 



would have, in an instance where, exercised in its full extent, it might lead
to inconvenie nce, and to give that right to another who would not naturally
have had it. It also gives to the President a right, which he otherwise would
not have had, "to convene both houses, or either of them, on extraordina ry
occasions:" Thus substitutin g the will of another, where they are not in a
situation to exercise their own. 



"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrenc e of the Senate and
House of Representa tives may be necessary (except on a question of
adjournment), shall be presented to the President for his approbatio n, &c."
Art. I Sec. 7. The latitude of the general words here used would have subjected
the natural right of adjournme nt of the two houses to the will of the
President, which was not intended. They therefore expressly "except questions
of adjournme nt" out of their operation. They do not here give a right of
adjournme nt, 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 adjournme nt, without pointing out the source from which they
will derive it. 



These are all the passages of the Constitutio n (one only excepted, which shall
be presently cited) where the right of adjournme nt 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 



64 Jefferson's Works 



some specific modificatio n for cases where either a defeat in the natural
right, or a too full use of it, would occasion inconvenie nce. 



The right of adjournme nt, then, is not given by the Constitutio n, and
consequent ly 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 concurrenc e 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 Constitutio n 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 constitutio nal abridgment of their natural right of adjournme
nt; and completing our review of all the clauses in the Constitutio n which
touch that right, authorizes us to say no part of that instrument gives it; and
that the houses hold it, not from the Constitutio n, but from nature. 



A consequenc e of this is, that the houses may, by 



Official Papers 65 



a joint resolution, remove themselves from place to place, because it is a part
of their right of self-gover nment; but that as the right of self-gover nment
does not comprehen d the governmen t of others, the two houses cannot, by a
joint resolution of their majorities only, remove the Executive and Judiciary
from place to place. These branches possessing also the rights of self-gover
nment from nature, cannot be controlled in the exercise of them but by a law,
passed in the forms of the Constitutio n. The clause of the bill in question,
therefore, was necessary to be put into the form of a law, and to be submitted
to the President, so far as it proposes to effect the removal of the Executive
and Judiciary to Philadelphi a. So far as respects the removal of the present
houses of legislation thither, it was not necessary to be submitted to the
President; but such a submission is not repugnant to the Constitutio n. On the
contrary, if he concurs, it will so far fix the next session of Congress at
Philadelphi a that it cannot be changed but by a regular law. 



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 Representa tives against the constitutio nality of the bill now before
the President; and they were overruled by a majority of that house, comprehen
ding the delegation of all the States south of the Hudson, except South
Carolina.



#VOL. III- 5# 



66 Jefferson's Works 



At the last session of Congress, when the bill for remaining a certain term at
New York, and then removing to Susquehan na or Germantow n was objected to on
the same ground, the objection was overruled by a majority comprehen ding 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 Representa tives. 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 unnecessar y, 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 adjournme nt
from the Constitutio n. This error being corrected, the objections founded on
it fall of themselves. 



It would also be work of mere supereroga tion to show that, granting what this
writer takes for granted (that the President's assent would be an inoperative
ingredient, because excluded by the Constitutio n, 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 Philadelphi a. 1. If he assents
to the bill, that 



Official Papers 67



assent makes good law of the part relative to the Potomac; and the part for
holding the next session at Philadelphi a is good, either as an ordinance, or a
vote of the two houses, containing a complete declaration of their will in a
case where it is competent to the object; so that they must go to Philadelphi a
in that case. 2. If he dissents from the bill it annuls the part relative to
the Potomac; but as to the clause for adjourning to Philadelphi a, his dissent
being as inefficient as his assent, it remains a good ordinance or vote, of the
two houses for going thither, and consequent ly they must go in this case also.
3. If the President withholds his will out of the bill altogether, by a ten
days' silence, then the part relative to the Potomac becomes a good law without
his will, and that relative to Philadelphi a is good also, either as a law, or
an ordinance, or a vote of the two houses; and consequent ly in this case also
they go to Philadelphi a. 



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 Plenipotent iary, 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



68 Jefferson's Works 



of State thought it his duty to confer with the gentlemen heretofore employed
as ministers in Europe, to obtain from them, in aid of his own information , an
enumeratio n of the expenses incident to these offices, and their opinion which
of them would be included within the fixed salary, and which would be entitled
to be charged separately. He, therefore, asked a conference with the
Vice-Presid ent, who was acquainted with the residences of London and the
Hague, and the Chief Justice, who was acquainted with that of Madrid, which
took place yesterday. 



The Vice-Presid ent, 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. Consequent ly, 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, Court­fees. ­ 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, 



Official Papers 69 



considered this second class of expenses as ordinary, and therefore included in
the fixed salary. The first class before mentioned, he had viewed as
extraordina ry. The other two gentlemen were of opinion this second class was
also out of the definition, and might be allowed in addition to the salary. One
of them, particularl y, considered the phrase as meaning "personal services and
personal expenses," that is, expenses for his personal accommodat ion,
comforts, and maintenanc e. This second class of expenses is not within that
description . 



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 satisfactor y to himself, as well as to the
diplomatic gentlemen, to leave nothing uncertain as to their allowances; and
because, too, a previous determinati on is in some degree necessary to the
forming an estimate which may not exceed the whole sum appropriat ed. 



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

70 Jefferson's Works 



who furnished him with the note, of which a copy accompanie s this. Considerin
g all circumstan ces, Mr. Barclay is of opinion, we had better have only a
consul there, and that he should be the one now residing at Morocco, because,
as secretary to the Emperor, he sees him every day, and possesses his ear. He
is of opinion six hundred dollars a year might suffice for him, and that it
should be proposed to him not as a salary, but as a sum in gross intended to
cover his expenses, and to save the trouble of keeping accounts. That this
consul should be authorized to appoint agents in the seaports, who would be
sufficiently paid by the consignmen ts of vessels. He thinks the consul at
Morocco would most convenientl y receive his allowance through the channel of
our Charge at Madrid, on whom, also, this consulate had better be made
dependent for instruction s, information , and correspond ence, because of the
daily intercourse between Morocco and Cadiz. 



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 augmentati on
till a view of the whole diplomatic establishme nts 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:# 



Official Papers 71 



Estimate o f the Expenses of a Minister Plenipotent iary. 



July 19, 1790.  Minister Plenipotent iary, his salary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .                  $9,000  His outfit, suppose it to happen
once in seven years, will average .................. ..........           1,285
 His return at a quarter's salary will average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
                                        321  Extras, viz.: Gazettes,
Translating, Printing, Aids to poor  American sailors, Couriers, and Postage,
about .. . . . . . . .                                                         
                       350  His Secretary .................. ..................
.....                                                           1,350          
                                                                               
        $12,396 



Estimate for a Chargé des Affaires. 



Chargé des Affaires, his salary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .                                   $4,500  His outfit, once in seven
years, equal to an annual sum of . . .                                         
 643  His return at a quarter's salary, do.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .                                            161  Extras, as above
.................................... ..                                        
                      350                                                      
                                            $5,654 



The Agent at the Hague, his salary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                  $1,300  Extras ..................
.................. ...........                                                 
                 100                                                           
                                         $1,400 



Estimate of the Annual Expenses of the Establishm ent proposed. 



France, a Minister Plenipotent iary........... .............                   
                               12,306  London, do. do. ..................
......                                                                    
12,306  Madrid, a Chargé des Affaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .                                5,654  Lisbon, do. do. do.
.................. ..........                                                  
             5,654  Hague, an agent......... .................. ............   
                                                            1,400  Morocco, a
consul........ .................. ............                                 
                              1,800  Presents to foreign ministers on taking
leave, at $1,000 each, more or less, 

 according to their favor and time. There will be five of them. If exchanged  

once in seven years, it will be annually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         715                        
                                                                           
$39,835 



72 Jefferson's Works 



Estimate of the probable calls on our foreign fund        from July 1, 1790,  

when the act for foreign intercourse passed, to July 1, 1791.  



France, a Minister Plenipotent iary, his outfit        . ..                 
$9,000  

His salary, suppose it to commence August 1st.. .                   8,250  

Extras ...........                                                   320  

Secretary . .................. .................. .                            
    1,237.5- $18,807.5  

Charge, suppose him to remain till November 1st.          

Salary .................. ...........                                        
1,500         

Extras . . .......                                                          
117  

His return, a quarter's salary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                
1,125        -      2,742  

Madrid, a Charge, his salary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               
4,500  

Extras ...........         ...............                                     
      350        -      4,850  

Lisbon, a Chargé, (or Resident,) his outfit . . . . . .                 4,500  

His salary, suppose it to commence January 1, 1791 ..........        2,250  

Extras . .................. .............                                      
    175        -       6,925  

London, an Agent, suppose to commence October          

        1st, at $1,350 salary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          
1,012.5  

Extras, (at $100 a year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             
       75        -       1,087.5  

Hague, an Agent .................. .........                                
1,400  

Morocco, Consul....... .................. ...                                
1,800        -       3,200  

Presents to foreign Ministers.         .The dye about . .                    
500  

Two medals and chains .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               
 2,000        -       2,500                                                    
                                              $40,112 



Opinion in regard to the continuanc e of the monopoly of the commerce of the
Creek nation, enjoyed by Col. McGillivray . 



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 considerin g these privileges as the
principal sources of his power over that nation, is unwilling to enter into
treaty 



Official Papers 73 



with us, unless they can be continued to him. And the question is how this may
be done consistentl y with our laws, and so as to avoid just complaints from
those of our citizens who would wish to participate of the trade? 



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 substitutin g 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
concurrenc e of two-thirds of the Senate, is a law of the land, 



74 Jefferson's Works  



and a law of superior order, because it not only repeals past laws, but cannot
itself be repealed by future ones.¹ The treaty, then, will legally control the
duty acts, and the acts for licensing traders, in this particular instance.
When a citizen applies for a license, who is not of McGillivray 's partnershi
p, he will be told that but a given number could be licensed by the treaty, and
that the number is full. It seems that in this way no law will be violated, and
no just cause of complaint will be given; on the contrary, the treaty will have
bettered our situation, though not in the full degree which might have been
wished. 



Opinion respecting our foreign debt. 



August 26, 1790. On considerati on 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 instruction s 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 consequenc e 



#¹ At a later period, upon reviewing this opinion, the following note was
appended by Mr. Jefferson: "Unless with the consent or default of the other
contracting party. It may well be doubted, too, and perhaps denied, that the
treaty power can control a law. The question here proposed was then of the
first impression. Subsequen t investigati ons have proved that the contrary
position is the more general truth.# 



Official Papers 75 



foreseen by our banker, that the purchasers would have been obliged, in order
to make good their payments, to deluge the markets of Amsterdam with American
paper of all sorts, and to sell it any price, was a probable one. And the more
so, as we know that the particular individuals who were engaged in that
speculation , possess no means of their own adequate to the payments they would
have had to make. While we must not doubt that these motives, together with a
proper regard for the credit of the United States, had real and full weight
with our bankers, towards inducing them to counter work these private
speculation s; yet, to ascribe their industry in this business wholly to these
motives, might lead to a too great and dangerous confidence in them. It was
obviously their interest to defeat all such speculation s, because they tended
to take out of their hands, or at least to divide with them, the profits of the
great operation of transferrin g the French debt to Amsterdam, an object of
first rate magnitude to them, and on the undivided enjoyments of which they
might count, if private speculators could be baffled. It has been a contest of
dexterity and cunning, in which our champions have obtained the victory. The
manoeuvre of opening a loan of three millions of florins, has, on the whole,
been useful to the United States, and though unauthoriz ed, I think should be
confirmed. The measure proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, of sending a
superinten dent of their future operations,



76 Jefferson's Works 



will effectually prevent their doing the like again, and the funding laws leave
no danger that such an expedient might at any future time be useful to us. 



The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the draught of instruction s,
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
advantageo us 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 



Official Papers 77 



terms. The saving of interest, too, on the sum so to be bought, may be applied
in buying up more principal, and thereby keep this salutary operation going. 



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 unsuspecte d quarters, such information s and suspicions as may lead
him exactly into their snares. So wonderfull y dexterous are they in wrapping
up and complicatin g their proposition s, they will make it evident, even to a
clear-head ed 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 governmen
t? Our bankers told 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 



78 Jefferson's Works 



never for more than five. By contracting for only one million of dollars at a
time, the agent Will have frequent occasions of trying to better the terms. I
dare say that this caution, though not expressed in the instruction s, is
intended by the Secretary of the Treasury to be carried into their execution.
But, perhaps, it Will be desirable for the President, that his sense of it also
should be expressed in Writing. 



Opinion upon the question what the answer of the President should be in case
Lord Dorchester should apply for permission to march troops through the
territory of the United States, from Detroit to the Mississippi. 



GEORGE WASHINGTO N 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 circumstan ces
(individuall y unimportan t and inconclusiv e, 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 consequenc es of having so formidable and enterprizin g 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 enumeratio n. 



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



Official Papers 79 



without leave, which is the most probable proceeding of the two? 



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



Opinion on the questions stated in the President's note of August 27th, 1790. 

August 28, 1790. I am so deeply impressed with the magnitude of the dangers
which will attend our governmen t, 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. 



80 Jefferson's Works 



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
notwithsta nding, of which there can be little doubt, we shall stand committed.
For either we must enter immediately into the war, or pocket an acknowledg ed
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 notwithsta nding, 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, 



Official Papers 81



I should be for expressing our dissatisfact ion to the British court, and
keeping alive an altercation on the subject, till events should decide whether
it is most expedient to accept their apologies, or profit of the aggression as
a cause of war. 



Opinion on the question whether it will be expedient to notify to Lord
Dorchester the real object of the expedition preparing by Governor St. Clair. 



August 29, 1790. On considerin g 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 preparatio ns 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 



#VOL. III-6.# 



82 Jefferson's Works 



enemy between them able to take those he should leave, and cut off the return
of those he should carry. These suspicions, too, would mislead both him and the
Indians, and so enable us to take the latter more completely by surprise, and
prevent him from sending secret aid to those whom he would not suppose the
objects of the enterprise; thus effecting a double purpose of preventing his
enterprise, and securing our own. Might it not even be expedient, with a view
to deter his enterprise, to instruct Governor St. Clair either to continue his
pursuit of the Indians till the season be too far advanced for Lord Dorchester
to move; or, on disbanding his militia, to give them general orders (which
might reach the ears of Lord Dorchester ) to be ready to assemble at a moment's
warning, though no such assembly be really intended? 



Always taking care neither to say nor do, against their passage, what might
directly commit either our peace or honor. 



Opinion on proceeding s to be had under the Residence act. 



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 commission ers to be appointed. I suppose them not entitled to any
salary. 



Official Papers 83 



(If they live near the place they may, in some instances, be influenced by self
interest, and partialities; but they will push the work with zeal. If they are
from a distance, and northwardl y, they will be more impartial, but may affect
delays.] 



The commission ers 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 consolidate d.
For the Capitol and offices, one square. For the market, one square. For the
public walks, nine squares consolidate d. 



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 Philadelphi a, 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. 



84 Jefferson's Works 



The commission ers should have some taste in architectur e, 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 impropriet y 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
circumjace nt 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 Philadelphi a. 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. 



Official Papers 85 



Report by the Secretary of State to the President of the United States on the
Report of the Secretary of the Governmen t north-west of the Ohio. 



December 14, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under his considerati on
the report made by the Secretary of the Governmen t north-west of the Ohio, of
his proceeding s 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
possession s 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 improveme nts at
the post. 



The Secretary of the north-west ern governmen t, 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,



86 Jefferson's Works 



but rendered doubtful by the condition annexed, to the grants of lands in the
Illinois country. The cases of these claimants, fifteen in number, are
specially stated in the papers hereto annexed, number 2, and the lands are laid
off for them but remain ungranted till further orders. 



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 participatio n of the donation, and urge extraordina ry militia
service to which they are exposed. 



4. One hundred and fifty acres of land within the village granted under the
former governmen t 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 commandan t
of the post, who, according to the usage under the French and British governmen
ts, thinking himself authorized to grant lands, delegated that authority to a
court of civil and criminal jurisdictio n, 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 



Official Papers 87 



parcels from four hundred acres down to the size of house lots; and some of
them under considerabl e improveme nt. Some of the tenants urge that they were
induced by the court itself to come and settle these lands under assurance of
their authority to grant them, and that a loss of the lands and improveme nts
will involve them in ruin. Besides these small grants, there are some much
larger, sometimes of many leagues square, which a sense of their impropriet y
has prevented the grantees from bringing forward. Many pretended grants, too,
of this class are believed to be forgeries, and are, therefore, to be guarded
against. 



6. Two thousand four hundred acres of good land, and three thousand acres of
sunken land, held under the French, British, and American governmen ts, 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 governmen t, with the papers
therein referred to, should be laid before Congress for their determinati on.
Authentic copies of them are herewith enclosed to the President of the United
States. 



88 Jefferson's Works 



Opinion on certain proceeding s of the Executive in the North-west ern
Territory. 



December 14, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under his considerati on,
the journal of the proceeding s of the Executive in the North-west ern
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 governmen t to guard its subordinat e members from the
encroachme nts of each other, even when they are made through error or
inadverten ce, 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 considerati on, and if he
finds them to be against law, that his opinion be communicat ed to the Governor
of the North-west ern Territory, for his future conduct. 



The following are the extracts alluded to above: 



Official Papers 89 



Extracts from the Journal of the Proceeding s in the Executive Department of
governmen t in the Territory of the United States, north-west of the Ohio,
reported to the President of the United States, by Winthrop Sergeant,
Secretary. 



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 acquaintin g the officer
commandin g 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
imprisonme nt. 



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



The practice of selling spirituous liquors to the Indians in the villages being
attended with very ill consequenc es, it is expressly prohibited; and all and
every person transgressi ng 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 recommend ation 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 prosecutio n 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 restriction s and penalties, a license for so doing. 



PROCLAMA TION.­Wher eas, his Excellency, Arthur St. Clair, Esq., Governor and
Commander -in-chief of this Territory, did by proclamatio n 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 



90 Jefferson's Works 



skins, upon penalty not only of forfeiting the flesh and skins which they might
acquire, but also prosecutio n and punishment as trespasser s. 



And it appearing to me to be particularl y 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 governmen t 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 commandin g 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 commandin g 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 Independe nce 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 commandin g officer for the time being, of their intention, And all
intelligence or discoveries of Indians, to be immediately reported. (Signed,)
WINTHROP SARGENT. 



Report on certain letters from the President to Mr. Gouverneu r Morris, and
from Mr. Morris to the President, relative to our difficulties with England­
1790. 



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



Official Papers 91 



the President of the United States, to Mr. Gouverneu r Morris; and those of Mr.
Morris to the President, of January 22d, April 7th, 13th, May 1st, 29th, July
3d, August 16th, and September 18th, referred to him by the President, makes
the following report thereon: 



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. Indemnifica tion for the negroes carried off against the stipulation s 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 communicat ions, 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 irremediall y the recovery of debts in many cases. They suggest,
indeed, the idea of an indemnifica tion on our part. But probably were we
disposed to admit their right 



92 Jefferson's Works 



to indemnifica tion, they would take care to set it so high as to insure a
disagreeme nt. 



2. That as to indemnifica tion 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 communicat ions 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 successfull y 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 



Official Papers 93 



with opposition in his cabinet, so as to render the issue uncertain. 



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 disposition s of the British cabinet. 



That it would be dishonorab le to the United States, useless and even
injurious, to renew the proposition s 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 indemnifica tion 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 compensati on be given to Mr. Morris for his services herein,
which having been begun on the 22d of January, and ended the 18th of September,
comprehen d 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; 



94 Jefferson's Works 



which, according to the establishme nt of the United States at the time of this
appointmen t, was at the rate of $3,000 a year; consequent ly, that such a sum
of between one and two thousand dollars be allowed him as the President shall
deem proper, on a view of the interferenc e which this agency may have had with
Mr. Morris' rivate pursuits in Europe. 



Report relative to the Mediterran ean trade. 



December 28, 1790. The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of
Representa tives 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
Mediterran ean, with instruction s to report thereupon to the House, has had
the same under considerati on, 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 commencem ent 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 Mediterran ean 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 



Official Papers 95 



Mediterran ean ports; that these articles constituted the principal part of
what we sent into that sea; that that commerce loaded outwards from eighty to
one hundred ships, annually, of twenty thousand tons, navigated by about twelve
hundred seamen. It was abandoned early in the war. And after the peace which
ensued, it was obvious to our merchants, that their adventures into that sea
would be exposed to the depredatio ns of the piratical States on the coast of
Barbary. Congress, too, was very early attentive to this danger, and by a
commission of the 12th of May, 1784, authorized certain persons, named
ministers plenipotent iary for that purpose, to conclude treaties of peace and
amity with the Barbary powers. And it being afterwards found more expedient
that the negotiation s should be carried on at the residences of those powers,
Congress, by a farther commission, bearing date the 11th of March, 1785,
empowered the same ministers plenipotent iary to appoint agents to repair to
the said powers at their proper residences, and there to negotiate such
treaties. The whole expenses were limited to eighty thousand dollars. Agents
were accordingl y sent to Morocco and Algiers. 



Before the appointmen t 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 interpositio n of the court of Madrid, had liberated the crew, and
made restitution of the vessel and cargo, as for as their condition admitted. 



96 Jefferson's Works 



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 consequent ly, to
make provision for the expenses which may attend it. The amount of the former
furnishes one ground of estimate; but the character and disposition s of the
successor, which are unknown here, may influence it materially. The friendship
of this power is important, because our Atlantic as well as Mediterran ean
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 negotiation s were on foot at Morocco and Algiers, an ambassador
from Tripoli arrived in London. The Ministers Plenipotent iary 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, 



Official Papers 97 



and of reason, and nothing was done. Nor was it of importance, as, Algiers
remaining hostile, the peace of Tunis and Tripoli was of no value, and when
that of the former should be obtained, theirs would soon follow. 



Our navigation, then, into the Mediterran ean, has not been resumed at all
since the peace. The sole obstacle has been the unprovoke d 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 Mediterran ean, 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 commandin g 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 particularl y. Nor
is it certain that our seamen could be induced to 



#VOL. III-7# 



98 Jefferson's Works 



engage in that navigation, though with the security of Algerine faith that they
would be liberated on the payment of a fixed sum. The temporary deprivation of
liberty, perhaps chains, the danger of the pest, the perils of the engagemen t
preceding their surrender, and possible delays of the ransom, might turn
elsewhere the choice of men, to whom all the rest of the world is open. In
every case, these would be embarrass ments which would enter into the
merchants' estimate, and endanger the preference of foreign bottoms not exposed
to them. And upon the whole, this expedient does not fulfil our wish of a
complete re-establis hment of our commerce in that sea. 



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.¹ His character and
opinion both merited respect. Yet his estimate being 



#¹ See Extract No. 1 (page 104) accompanyi ng this report.# 



Official Papers 99 

the lowest of all who have hazarded an opinion on this subject, one is apt to
fear his judgment might have been biassed by the hope he entertained that the
United States would charge him with this negotiation . 



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
plenipotent iary, who conferred with him, had judged that as much must be paid
to Algiers as to the other three powers together; and consequent ly, that
according to this measure, the peace of Algiers would cost from an hundred to
an hundred and twenty-fiv e thousand pounds sterling; or from four hundred and
sixty to five hundred and seventy-fi ve thousand dollars. 



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



100 Jefferson's Works 



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 Plenipotent iary of the United States, at Paris, had many and long
conversatio ns, 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
considerabl e 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; consequent ly 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 



Official Papers 101 



tribute of one hundred thousand dollars to be annually paid. Yet perceiving
that France, embarrasse d at home with her domestic affairs, was less capable
of acting abroad, they took six vessels of that nation in the course of the
last year, and retain the captives, forty-four in number, in slavery. 



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 authentical ly advanced; as from a principle of self-conde
mnation, the governmen ts 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 consequent ly, 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 



102 Jefferson's Works 



1789, differing in small degrees, but concurring in the main. From these it
results that they have usually had about nine chebecs, from ten to thirty-six
guns, and four galleys, which have been reduced by losses to six chebecs and
four galleys. They have a forty-gun frigate on the stocks, and expect two
cruisers from the grand seignior. The character of their vessels is, that they
are sharp built and swift, but so light as not to stand the broadside of a good
frigate. Their guns are of different calibres, unskilfully pointed and worked.
The vessels illy manoeuvre d, but crowded with men, one third Turks, the rest
Moors, of determined bravery, and resting their sole hopes on boarding. But two
of these vessels belong to the governmen t, the rest being private property. If
they come out of the harbor together, they separate immediately in quest of
prey; and it is said they were never known to act together in any instance. Nor
do they come out at all, when they know there are vessels cruising for them.
They perform three cruises a year, between the middle of April and November,
when they unrig and lay up for the winter. When not confined within the
straits, they rove northwardl y to the channel, and westwardly to the westward
islands. 



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



Should the United States propose to vindicate 



Official Papers 103 



their commerce by arms, they would, perhaps, think it prudent to possess a
force equal to the whole of that which may be opposed to them. What that equal
force would be, will belong to another department to say. 



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 apprehend ed for some time, the Atlantic
`will immediately become the principal scene of their piracies: their peace
with Spain having reduced the profits of their Mediterran ean cruises below the
expenses of equipment. 



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



104 Jefferson's Works 



shall be called forth, and how far they will enable the Executive to engage, in
the forms of the constitutio n, the co-operatio n of other powers. If tribute
or ransom, it will rest with them to limit and provide the amount; and with the
Executive, observing the same constitutio nal forms, to take arrangeme nts for
employing it to the best advantage. 



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, considerin g 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 Philadelphi a 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 



Plenipotent iary 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
indissolubl e 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 



Official Papers 105 



signed by the dey and other officers. If it were agreed to, he would send his
secretary by land to Marseilles, and from thence, by water, to Tripoli, who
should bring it back by the same route, signed by the dey, &c. He had proposed
so small a sum in considerati on of the circumstan ces, but declared it was not
half of what had been lately paid them by Spain. If we chose to treat upon a
different plan, he would make a treaty perpetual upon the payment of twelve
thousand five hundred guineas for the first year, and three thousand guineas
annually, until the thirty thousand guineas were paid. It was observed that
these were large sums, and vastly beyond expectation ; but his excellency
answered, that they never made a treaty for less. Upon the arrival of a prize,
the dey and other officers are entitled, by their laws, to large shares, by
which they might make greater profits than those sums amounted to, and they
never would give up this advantage for less. 



"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 communicat e all to Mr. Jefferson, and persuade him to come here,
that we may join in farther conference s, 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
indispensa ble to conclude with the four powers at this rate, besides a present
to the ambassador s, 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
Plenipotent iary 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 



106 Jefferson's Works 



would be much facilitated by a previous one with the Ottoman Porte, it was
agreed between Mr. Adams and myself, that on my return I should consult, on
this subject, the Count De Vergennes, whose long residence at Constantin ople
rendered him the best judge of its expediency . Various circumstan ces have put
it out of my power to consult him till to-day. I stated to him the difficulties
we were likely to meet with at Algiers, and asked his opinion, what would be
the probable expense of a diplomatic mission to Constantin ople, and what its
effects at Algiers. He said that the expense would be very great; for that
presents must be made at that court, and every one would be gaping after them;
and that it would not procure us a peace at Algiers one penny the cheaper. He
observed that the Barbary States acknowledg ed a sort of vassalage to the
Porte, and availed themselves of that relation when anything was to be gained
by it; but that whenever it subjected them to the demand from the Porte, they
totally disregarde d it; that money was the sole agent. He cited the present
example of Spain, which, though having a treaty with the Porte, would probably
be obliged to buy a peace at Algiers, at the expense of upwards of six millions
of livres. I told him we had calculated, from the demands and information of
the Tripoline ambassador at London, that to make peace with the four Barbary
States would cost us between two and three hundred thousand guineas, if bought
with money. 



"The sum did not seem to exceed his expectation s. I mentioned to him, that
considerin g the uncertaint y of a peace, when bought, perhaps Congress might
think it more eligible to establish a cruise of frigates in the Mediterran ean,
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 administeri ng 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 



Official Papers 107 



the necessary orders to the captains of his cruisers not to take the Neapolitan
vessels. The dey said the meaning of the truce was not to take the Neapolitan
cruisers, but if his chebecks should meet the Neapolitan merchantm en to take
them and send them for Algiers. The ambassador said, the Neapolitan cruisers
would not want a pass on those terms. The dey said, if his chebecks should meet
either men of war or merchant vessels, to take them; so gave orders accordingl
y. The Algerines sailed the 9th instant, and are gone, I believe, off the coast
of Italy. This shows there is very little confidence to be put in the royal
word. No principle of national honor will bind those people; and I believe not
much confidence to be put in them in treaties. The Algerines are not inclinable
to a peace with the Neapolitans . I hear of no negotiation . When the two
frigates arrive with the money for the ransom of the slaves, I believe they are
done with the Neapolitans ." 



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; accordingl y, the
Danes have evacuated the Mediterran ean 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-robber s, the terror and scourge of the Christians. The reason the
Algerines have not committed any depredatio ns 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 governmen t here money and
presents, In fact, the Algerines are trying their endeavors to find 



108 Jefferson's Works 



some nation to break the peace with them. I think, if they had treated the
English in such a manner as they have the French, that the English would resent
it." 



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



"What dependenc e or faith could be given to a peace with the Algerines,
considerin g their present haughtines s, 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 consequenc e 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 Plenipotent
iary of the 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 accumulati ng 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 o f 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  

to Row Galleys €                 men, and so in proportion. 



Official Papers 109 



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-galley s, 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.-Capta in 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    "      "           "         "



110 Jefferson's Works 



  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    "      "           "         "



February 5, 1788.-State ment by the inhabitants of Algiers, spoken of in the
report.  9 vessels from 36 down to 20 guns.  4 or 5 smaller. 



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. 



No. 7.-Translat ion of a letter from Count D'Estaing to the Hon. Thomas
Jefferson, Esq. Paris, May 17, 1784.  



SIR, ­ In giving you an account of an opinion of Mr. Massiac, and which
absolutely correspond s 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 circumstan ces, that I cannot ascertain,
may exact. 



This Secretary of State, afterwards vice-Admir al, 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 governmen t was about to
adopt. They wanted him to undertake a bombardme nt; 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-anch oring, 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 



Official Papers 111 



there, and there is no Barbarian power thus confined, which would not sue for
peace. 



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 manoeuvre s, 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
refreshmen ts 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 . Bombardme nts 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 insupporta ble 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
counteract ed 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 unsuccessf ul 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 merchantm en 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 overcharge d with
men, are moreover so badly armed and manoeuvre d 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 opportunit y of offering, still more particularl y,
the homage, the sincere attachment, and the respect with which I have the honor
to be, &c. ESTAING. 



112 Jefferson's Works 



Report on the Algerine Prisoners. 



December 28, 1790. The Secretary of State, having had under considerati on 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 Representa tives, 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 expectation s, 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 Philadelphi a, was taken by another Algerine, about fifty
leagues westward of Lisbon. These vessels, with their cargoes and crews, 



Official Papers 113 



twenty-one persons in number, were carried into Algiers. 



Congress had some time before commission ed Ministers Plenipotent iary 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 accordingl
y appointed for Algiers, and his instruction s prepared, when the Ministers
Plenipotent iary received information of these captures. Though the ransom of
captives was not among the objects expressed in their commission s, 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 supplement ary 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 disapprove
d. 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 



#VOL. III-8# 



114 Jefferson's Works 



but little from that demand. The agent, therefore, returned in 1786, without
having effected either peace or ransom. 



In the beginning of the next year, 1787, the Minister Plenipotent iary 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 engagemen t
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
Plenipotent iary



Official Papers 115 



at Paris received their orders to embrace the offers of the Mathurins. This he
immediately notified to the general, observing, however, that he did not desire
him to enter into any engagemen ts till a sufficient sum to cover them should
be actually deposited in Paris. The general wished that the whole might be kept
rigorously secret, as, should the barbarians suspect him to be acting for the
United States, they would demand such sums as he could never agree to give,
even with our consent, because it would injure his future purchases from them.
He said he had information from his agent at Algiers, that our captives
received so liberal a daily allowance as to evince that it came from a public
source. He recommend ed that this should be discontinue d; engaging that he
would have an allowance administere d to them, much short indeed of what they
had hitherto received, but such as was given to his own countryme n, quite
sufficient for physical necessities, and more likely to prepare the opinion,
that as they were subsisted by his charity, they were to be redeemed by it
also. These ideas, suggested to him by the danger of raising his market, were
approved by the Minister Plenipotent iary; because, this being the first
instance of a redemption by the United States, it would form a precedent,
because a high price given by us might induce these pirates to abandon all
other nations in pursuit of Americans; whereas, the contrary would take place,
could our price of redemption be fixed at the lowest point. 



116 Jefferson's Works 



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 discontinue d, 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 circumstan ces, and drew from them the most afflicting reproaches . 



It was a twelvemont h 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 considerabl e 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




Official Papers 117 



as three thousand livres, or five hundred and fifty-five dollars a man. He
wrote immediately to consult a confidentia l agent at Marseilles, on the best
mode of carrying this business into effect; from whom he received the answer
No. 2, hereto annexed. 



Nothing further was known of his progress or prospects, when the House of
Representa tives 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 withdrawin g the means,
seems to have suspended the proceeding s of the Mathurins in the purposes of
their institution. 



It is time, therefore, to look about for something more promising, without
relinquishi ng, in the meanwhile, the chance of success through them. Endeavors
to collect information , which have been continued a considerabl e 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 



118 Jefferson's Works 



to him personally. Passing over the ransoms of the Mathurins, which are kept
for below the common level by special circumstan ces: 



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-inform ed
inhabitant of Algiers assured the Minister Plenipotent iary 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 



Official Papers 119 



Scotch boy, a common mariner, was actually redeemed at 8,000 livres, equal to
$1,481, which is within nineteen dollars of the price Simpson states for common
men; and the Charge des Affaires of the United States at Paris is informed that
the whole may be redeemed at that rate, adding fifty per cent, on the captains,
which would bring it to $1,571 a man. 



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. 



120 Jefferson's Works 



Perhaps Turkish captives may be objects of greater partiality with them, as
their governmen t 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 Governmen t. 



The liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with the liberation
of our commerce in the Mediterran ean, now under the considerati on 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. 



The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representa tives,
the representa tion from the General Court of the Commonwea lth of Massachuse
tts, on the subjects of the cod and whale fisheries, together with the several
papers accompanyi ng it, has had the same under considerati on, and thereupon
makes the following report: 



February 1, 1791  The representa tion 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. 



Official Papers 121 



That, previous to the same period, the cod fishery of that State employed four
thousand men, and twenty-eig ht 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 embarrass
ments, which, if not removed, or lessened, will render the fisheries every year
less extensive and important. 



That these embarrass ments are heavy duties on their produce abroad, and
bounties on that of their competitors ; and duties at home on several articles,
particularl y 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 unprofitabl e 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 circumstan ces which
have attended their prosperity, and their decline; to judge of the embarrass
ments which are said to oppress ours; to see whether they depend on our own
will, and may, therefore, be remedied 



122 Jefferson' s Works 



immediately by ourselves, or, whether depending on the will of others, they are
without the reach of remedy from us, either directly or indirectly. 



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



Within twenty years after the supposed discovery of Newfoundla nd, 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 adventurer s in that
fishery were the Biscayans, of Spain, the Basques and Bas-Breton s, of France,
all united anciently in language, and still in habits, and in extreme poverty.
The last circumstan ce enabled them long to retain a considerabl e 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
appurtenan ce 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 intermediat e progress, we only know that, so
late as 1744, the French employed there five hundred and sixty-four ships, and
twenty-sev en thousand five hundred seamen, and took one million two hundred
and forty-six 



Official Papers 123 



thousand quintals of fish, which was three times the extent to which England
and her colonies together, carried this fishery at that time. 



The English, in the beginning of the seventeent h century, had employed,
generally, about one hundred and fifty vessels in the Newfoundla nd 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 governmen t 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 Newfoundla nd; under
these encourage ments, 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-fou r
thousand four hundred and twenty tons, nine thousand seven hundred and
twenty-two seamen, taking two hundred thousand quintals, while America 



124 Jefferson's Works 



alone, for some three or four years before that, and so on, to the commencem
ent of the late war, employed six hundred and sixty-five vessels, of twenty-fiv
e thousand six hundred and fifty tons, and four thousand four hundred and five
seamen, and took from three hundred and fifty thousand to upwards of four
hundred thousand quintals of fish, and England a still greater quantity, five
hundred and twenty-six thousand quintals, as is said. 



Spain had formally relinquishe d her pretension s to a participatio n 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 appropriat ed 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;



Official Papers 125 



and, in 1787, but six thousand men, and one hundred and twenty-eig ht thousand
quintals. She seems not yet sensible that the unthriftine ss of her fisheries
proceeds from the want of economy, and not the want of markets; and that the
encourage ment of our fishery abridges that of a rival nation, whose power on
the ocean has long threatened the loss of all balance on that element. 



The plan of the English Governmen t, 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 Mediterran ean 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, 



126 Jefferson's Works 



and 1789, on an average, five hundred and thirty nine vessels, of nineteen
thousand one hundred and eighty-five tons, three thousand two hundred and
eighty-sev en seamen, and took two hundred and fifty thousand six hundred and
fifty quintals of fish. * * * And an official paper * * shows that, in the last
of those years, our exportation amounted to three hundred and seventy-fi ve
thousand and twenty quintals, and thirty thousand four hundred and sixty-one
barrels; deduction made of three thousand seven hundred and one quintals, and
six thousand three hundred and forty-three barrels of foreign fish, received
and re-exporte d. * * Still, however, the calculation s * * which accompany the
representa tion, show that the profits of the sales in the years 1787 and 1788,
were too small to afford a living to the fishermen, and on those of 1789, there
was such a loss as to withdraw thirty-thre e vessels, of the town of Marblehead
alone, from the further pursuit of this business; and the apprehensi on is,
that, without some public aid, those still remaining will continue to withdraw,
and this whole commerce be engrossed by a single nation. 



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 disadvanta ges
which oppose us in this conflict. 



Official Papers 127 



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 manufactur es, 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, consequent ly, 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 Newfoundla nd fishery, nor can
support it without national aid, we can make a living profit, if vent for our
fish can be procured. 



128 Jefferson's Works 



Of the disadvanta ges 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 disadvanta ges, add
ineffectual duties on the importation of foreign fish. In justificatio n 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 merchantab le 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 



Official Papers 129 



drawback, or bounty; and whether the loss of markets abroad, may not, in some
degree, be compensate d, by creating markets at home; to which might contribute
the constitutin g fish a part of the military ration, in stations not too
distant from navigation, a part of the necessary sea stores of vessels, and the
encouragin g private individuals to let the fishermen share with the
cultivator, in furnishing the supplies of the table. A habit introduced from
motives of patriotism, would soon be followed from motives of taste; and who
will undertake to fix the limits to this demand, if it can be once excited,
with a nation which doubles, and will continue to double, at very short
periods? 



Of the disadvanta ges which depend on others, are -



1. The loss of the Mediterran ean 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 considerati on 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 



#VOL. III-9# 



130 Jefferson's Works 



the way to the fishery of Newfoundla nd. They began it on their own coasts, but
soon found that the principal residence of the whale was in the Northern seas,
into which, therefore, they pursued him. In 1578 they employed twenty-fiv e
ships in that business. The Dutch and Hamburghe rs took it up after this, and
about the middle of the seventeent h century the former employed about two
hundred ships, and the latter about three hundred and fifty. 



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 admeasure ment 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-eig ht and sixty-seve n vessels, till the
commencem ent 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 



Official Papers 131 



number. So that their fishery, notwithsta nding a bounty of thirty florins a
man, as well as that of Hamburg, is now nearly out of competition . 



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, accidentall y, 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 



132 Jefferson's Works 



at 50 degrees of Fahrenheit' s thermomete r, while that of the spermaceti whale
is limpid to 41, and of the Greenland whale to 36, of the same thermomete r. It
is only worth taking, therefore, when it falls in the way of the fishermen, but
not worth seeking, except when they have failed of success against the
spermaceti whale, in which case, this kind, easily found and taken, serves to
moderate their loss. 



In 1771 the Americans had one hundred and eighty-thr ee 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-se ven 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 opportunit y 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 consumptio n. Finding, on a review of the
subject, at that time, that their bounties had cost the Governmen t £13 IOS.
sterling a man, annually, or sixty per cent on the cargoes, a part of which
went consequent ly to ease the purchases of this article made by foreign
nations, they reduced the northern bounty 



Official Papers 133 



from forty to thirty shillings the ton of admeasure ment. 



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 encourage ment, 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 Governmen t of France could not be inattentive



134 Jefferson's Works 



to these proceeding s. They saw the danger of letting four or five thousand
seamen, of the best in the world, be transferre d to the marine strength of
another nation, and carry over with them an art, which they possessed almost
exclusively . To give time for a counterpla n, the Marquis de Lafayette, the
valuable friend and citizen of this, as well as that country, wrote to a
gentleman in Boston, to dissuade the fishermen from accepting the British
proposals, and to assure them that their friends in France would endeavor to do
something for them. A vessel was then arrived from Halifax at Nantucket, to
take off those who had proposed to remove. Two families had gone abroad, and
others were going. In this moment, the letter arriving, suspended their
designs. Not another went abroad, and the vessel returned to Halifax with only
the two families. 



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 admeasure ment of the vessels they should equip for the
whale fishery, with some other advantages . Nine families only, of thirty-thre
e persons, accepted 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 



Official Papers 135 



follow their calling from their native country, by giving them a new market for
their oils, instead of the old one they had lost. The duties were, therefore,
abated on American whale oil immediately , and a further abatement promised by
the letter No. 8, and, in December, 1787, the arrêt No. 9 was passed. 



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 Governmen t, perhaps,
too, by extraordina ry 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
consequenc e, the ensuing year from two hundred and twenty-two to one hundred
and seventy-ei ght 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 



136 Jefferson's Works 



(near twenty-sev en dollars) the ton, and, on about one hundred natives on
board the seventeen ships, (for there were one hundred and fifty Americans
engaged by the voyage) came to 2,225 livres, or about 416 2/3 dollars a man. 



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 continuanc e of this fishery, not to say its increase. Against
prohibitory duties in one country, and bounties to the adventurer s 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-seve n years,
being about one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year. The States General,
thereupon, gave 



Official Papers 137 



a bounty of thirty guilders a man to the fishermen. A person immediately
acquainted with the British whale fishery, and whose information merits
confidence, has given assurance that the ships employed in their northern
fishery, in 1788, sunk £800 each, on an average, more than the amount of the
produce and bounties. An English ship of three hundred tons and forty-two
seamen, in this fishery, generally brings home, after a four months' voyage,
twenty-fiv e tons of oil, worth £437 IOS. sterling; but the wages of the
officers and seamen will be £400; there remain but £37 IOS., not worth taking
into account, towards the outfit and merchants' profit. These, then, must be
paid by the Governmen t; and it is on this idea that the British bounty is
calculated. 



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, 



138 Jefferson's Works 



to pay all expenses, and subsist the owners and navigators. These expenses are
great, as the voyages are generally of twelve months' duration. No hope can
arise of their condition being bettered by an augmentati on of the price of
oil. This is kept down by the competition of the vegetable oils, which answer
the same purposes, not quite so well, but well enough to become preferable,
were the price to be raised, and so well, indeed, as to be more generally used
than the fish oils for lighting houses and cities. 



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 continuanc e there
can be made supportabl e. 



Official Papers 139 



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 fraudulentl y, 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 commencin g 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. 



140 Jefferson's Works 



The late Governmen t 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
Governmen t, as wise and friendly, will also view us, not as rivals, but as
co-operato rs against a common rival. Friendly arrangeme nts with them, and
accommodat ion to mutual interest, rendered easier by friendly disposition s
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 arrangeme nts with that nation; besides five-eighth s
of our whale oil, and two-thirds of our salted fish, they take from us
one-fourth of our tobacco, three-fourt hs of our live stock * * a considerabl e
and growing portion of our rice, great supplies, occasionall y, of other grain;
in 1789, which, indeed, was extraordina ry, 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 



Official Papers 141 



constructio n, without any change of law, it was made to exclude our oils from
their ports, when carried in our vessels. On some change of circumstan ce, it
was construed back again to the reception of our oils, on paying always,
however, the same duty of eighteen pounds five shillings. This serves to show
that the tenure by which we hold the admission of this commodity in their
markets, is as precarious as it is hard. Nor can it be announced that there is
any disposition on their part to arrange this or any other commercial matter,
to mutual convenienc e. The ex parte regulations which they have begun for
mounting their navigation on the ruins of ours, can only be opposed by counter
regulations on our part. And the loss of seamen, the natural consequenc e of
lost and obstructed markets for our fish and oil, calls, in the first place,
for serious and timely attention. It will be too late when the seaman shall
have changed his vocation, or gone over to another interest. If we cannot
recover and secure for him these important branches of employment , it behooves
us to replace them by others equivalent. We have three nurseries for forming
seamen: 

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 indemnifica tion 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 



142 Jefferson's Works 



it which is now in the hands of foreigners, and which we may resume into our
own, without touching the rights of those nations who have met us in fair
arrangeme nts by treaty, or the interests of those who, by their voluntary
regulations , have paid so just and liberal a respect to our interests, as
being measured back to them again, places both parties on as good ground,
perhaps, as treaties could place them-the proportion, I say, of our carrying
trade, which may be resumed without affecting either of these description s of
nations, will find constant employment for ten thousand seamen, be worth two
millions of dollars, annually, will go on augmenting with the population of the
United States, secure to us a full indemnifica tion for the seamen we lose, and
be taken wholly from those who force us to this act of self-protec tion in
navigation. 



Hence, too, would follow, that their Newfoundla nd ships, not receiving
provisions from us in their bottoms, nor permitted (by a law of their own) to
receive in ours, must draw their subsistenc e 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, consequent ly, the mass
of seamen whose interests are in distress; and No. 17, the materials for
indemnifica tion. 



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

Official Papers 143 



difference of circumstan ces, other regulations equivalent can give no
reasonable ground of complaint to any nation. Admitting their right of keeping
their markets to themselves, ours cannot be denied of keeping our carrying
trade to ourselves. And if there be anything unfriendly in this, it was in the
first example. 



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-freigh t 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 incalculabl e 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 encroachme nt, 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. 



144 Jefferson's Works 



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 transportat ion; but that, in order to create transportat ion, 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
calculation s on a full view of all circumstan ces. 



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 governmen t from the obligation of effectuatin g
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 arrangeme nts towards those nations whose arrangeme nts
are friendly to us, and the residue be compensate d by giving to the seamen
thrown out of business the certainty of employment in another branch, of which
we have the sole disposal. 



Official Papers 145 



Opinion against the constitutio nality of a National Bank. 



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



1. To form the subscriber s 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 subscriber s 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 Distributio n. 



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 communicat e 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 Constitutio n controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit
Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit
them to communicat e a similar right to other corporate bodies. VOL. III-10# 



146 Jefferson's Works 



the control of the State legislature s; and so, probably, they will be
construed. 



I consider the foundation of the Constitutio n as laid on this ground: That
"all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitutio n, 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 incorporati on of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in
my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitutio n. 



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 Constitutio n. 



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. 



Official Papers 147 



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 Constitutio n 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. Accordingl y the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of
trade, but as "productiv e of considerabl e advantages to trade." Still less
are these powers covered by any other of the special enumeratio ns. 



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."




148 Jefferson's Works 



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 independen t power to do any act they please, which might
be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent
enumeratio n's 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 constructio n 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 



Official Papers 149 



which formed the Constitutio n. A proposition was made to them to authorize
Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate .
But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in
debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would
render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the
subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitutio n. 



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
consequent ly not authorized by this phrase. 



It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenienc e in the
collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitutio n allows only
the means which are "necessary ," not those which are merely "convenien t" for
effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of constructio n be allowed
to this phrase as to give any non-enume rated power, it will go to every one,
for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenienc e 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 Constitutio n restrained them to
the necessary means, that is to say, to those 



150 Jefferson's Works 



means without which the grant of power would be nugatory. 



But let us examine this convenienc e and see what it is. The report on this
subject, page 3, states the only general convenienc e to be, the preventing the
transportat ion and re-transpo rtation 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 governmen t 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 governmen t 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 consequent ly 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 governmen t 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 



Official Papers 151 



then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displaceme nt of the main mass of
the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it
cannot be prevented even with that aid. 



Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury
orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenienc e, cannot
constitute the necessity which the constitutio n makes the ground for assuming
any non-enume rated power. 



Besides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangeme nts 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 arrangeme nt, but on their own terms, and the public
not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphi a, I
believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangeme nt
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 nonenumer ated 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 



152 Jefferson's Works 



single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank,
whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow
from this superior convenienc y, that there exists anywhere a power to
establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it. 



Can it be thought that the Constitutio n intended that for a shade or two of
convenienc e, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the
most ancient and fundamenta l laws of the several States; such as those against
Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distributio
n, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a
necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitutio n of
laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprude nce. Will
Congress be too straitlaced to carry the Constitutio n into honest effect,
unless they may pass over the foundation -laws of the State governmen t for the
slightest convenienc e of theirs? 



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



Official Papers 153 



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 unauthoriz ed by the Constitutio n; 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
Constitutio n has placed a check in the negative of the President. 



Opinion relative to locating the Ten Mile Square for the Federal Governmen t,
and building the Federal city. 



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



The commission ers to be called into action. 



Deeds of cession to be taken from the land-holde rs. 



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



Proclamatio n 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 governmen t, 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 



154 Jefferson's Works 



a town legislature, and things may be done before there is one to prevent them,
which yet it would be desirable to prevent, it would seem justifiable and
expedient that the President should form a capitulary of such regulations as he
may think necessary to be observed, until there shall be a town legislature to
undertake this office; such capitulary to be indented, signed, sealed, and
recorded, according to the laws of conveyance in Maryland. And to be referred
to in every deed for conveyance of the lots to purchasers , so as to make a
part thereof. The same thing might be effected, by inserting special covenants
for every regulation in every deed; but the former method is the shortest. I
cannot help again suggesting here one regulation formerly suggested, to wit: To
provide for the extinguish ment of fires, and the openness and convenienc e of
the town, by prohibiting houses of excessive height. And making it unlawful to
build on any one's purchase any house with more than two floors between the
common level of the earth and the eaves, nor with any other floor in the roof
than one at the eaves. To consider in what way the contracts for the public
buildings shall be made, and whether as many bricks should not be made this
summer as may employ brick-layer s in the beginning of the season of 1792; till
more can be made in that season. 



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



Official Papers 155 



and that consent may be so far counted on, as to render it expedient to declare
the location at once. 



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 lengthenin g the course from the court-hous e 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 Bladensbur
gh, because it is a better location, and I think will certainly be confirmed by
Maryland. 



156 Jefferson's Works 



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
nonconcurr ence 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 concurrenc e, 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. 



Report on the policy of securing particular marks to Manufactur ers, by law. 



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



Official Papers 157 



Breck and others, proprietors of a sail-cloth manufactor y in Boston, praying
that they may have the exclusive privilege of using particular marks for
designatin g the sail-cloth of their manufactor y, has had the same under
considerati on, and thereupon 



Reports, That it would, in his opinion, contribute to fidelity in the execution
of manufactur ers, to secure to every manufactor y an exclusive right to some
mark on its wares, proper to itself . 



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 jurisdictio n: Manufactur es 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 Governmen t. 



That it will, therefore, be reasonable for the General Governmen t to provide
in this behalf by law for those cases of manufactur e 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 manufactor y, to
enter in the records of the court of the district wherein his manufactor y 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. 



158 Jefferson's Works 



Opinion relative to the demolition of Mr. Carroll's house by Major L'Enfant, in
laying out the Federal city. 



December 11, 1791. Observatio ns 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
distributio n 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. Consequent ly, there is as yet no such thing as a street, 



Official Papers 159 



except adjacent to the lots actually sold or divided; the erection of a house
in any part of the ground cannot as yet be a nuisance in law. Mr. Carroll is
tenant in common of the soil with the public, and the erection of a house by a
tenant in common on the common property, is no nuisance. Mr. Carroll has acted
imprudentl y, intemperat ely, foolishly; but he has not acted illegally. There
must be an establishment of the streets, before his house can become a nuisance
in the eye of the law. Therefore, till that establishme nt, neither Major
L'Enfant, nor the commission ers, would have had a right to demolish his house,
without his consent. 



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 imprisonme nt, 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 imprisonme nt. In the present case, if Carroll was
to bring a civil action, the jury would probably punish his folly by small
damages, 



160 Jefferson's Works 



but if he were to prosecute criminally, the judge would as probably vindicate
the insult on the laws, and the breach of the peace, by heavy fines and
imprisonme nt. So that if Major L'Enfant is right in saying he had as much
authority to pull down a house as to cut down a tree, still he would feel a
difference in the punishment of the law. 



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
commission ers, 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 obstruction s, where they
insuperabl y 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 



Official Papers 161 



resentment against Mr. Carroll, and most probably not because it was necessary;
and the style in which he writes the justificatio n of his act, shows that a
continuatio n of the same resentment renders him still unable to acquiesce
under the authority from which he has been reproved. 



He desires a line of demarcatio n between his office, and that of the
commission ers. 



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
commission ers, and to approve or disapprove certain proceeding s of theirs.
They have the whole executive power, and stand between the President and the
subordinat e agents. In this view, they may employ or dismiss, order and
counterman d, take on themselves such parts of the execution as they please,
and assign other parts to subordinat e agents. Consequent ly, under the act of
Congress, their will is the line of demarcatio n between subordinat e 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 particularl y to the laying out the town: so that as to this, the
President is certainly authorized to draw 



#VOL. III-II# 



162 Jefferson's Works 



the line of demarcatio n between L'Enfant and the commission ers. But I believe
there is no necessity for it, as far as I have been able to judge, from
conversatio ns and consultatio ns with the commission ers. I think they are
disposed to follow implicitly the will of the President, whenever they can find
it out; but L'Enfant's letters do not breathe the same moderation or acquiescen
ce; and I think it would be much safer to say to him, "the orders of the
commission ers are your line of demarcatio n," than by attempting to define his
powers, to give him a line where he may meet with the commission ers foot to
foot, and chicane and raise opposition to their orders whenever he thinks they
pass his line. I confess, that on a view of L'Enfant's proceeding s and letters
latterly, I am thoroughly persuaded that, to render him useful, his temper must
be subdued; and that the only means of preventing his giving constant trouble
to the President, is to submit him to the unlimited control of the commission
ers; we know the discretion and forbearanc e with which they will exercise it. 



Opinion relative to certain lands on Lake Erie, sold by the United States to
Pennsylvan ia. 



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



Official Papers 163 



therein mentioned, on the subject of certain lands on Lake Erie, having had the
same under considerati on, thereupon Reports:-

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 Pennsylvan ia and Lake Erie, and authorized a sale
thereof. 



That a sale was accordingl y made to the commonwea lth of Pennsylvan ia. 



That Congress, by their resolution of September 4th, 1788, relinquishe d to the
said commonwea lth all their right to the government and jurisdictio n of the
said tract of land; but the right of soil was not transferre d 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 comptroller s of the United States and
of the said commonwea lth, and that the Governor of Pennsylvan ia 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 commonwea lth 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. 



164 Jefferson's Works 



Report relative to negotiation s with Spain to secure the free navigation of
the Mississippi, and a port on the same. 



December 22, 1791  The Secretary of State reports to the President of the
United States, that one of the commission ers of Spain, in the name of both,
has lately communicat ed to him verbally, by order of his court, that his
Catholic Majesty, apprized of our solicitude to have some arrangeme nt 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 plenipotent
iary made out for the purpose. 



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



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



Official Papers 165 



and foreign nations, will insufficient ly furnish the ordinary and regular
demands on it, and is consequent ly inadequate to the mission of an additional
commission er express from hence. 



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, commission ers plenipotent iary 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 accommodat ions with respect to a port, and other circumstan ces, 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 appointmen t of Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Short, as commission
ers to 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 arrangeme nt explained: 



166 Jefferson's Works 



The Secretary of State reports to the President of the United States the
following observatio ns on the subjects of negotiation between the United
States of America and the court of Spain, to be communicat ed by way of
instruction to the commission ers of the United States, appointed as before
mentioned, to manage that negotiation . 



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 possession s 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 establishme nt, separate and distinct societies, dependent on no
other society of men whatever. They continued at the head of their respective
governmen ts 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 governmen t their several boundaries were fixed; and particularl y the
southern boundary of Georgia, the only one now in question, was established at
the 31st degree of latitude from the Appalachic ola westwardly ; and 



Official Papers 167 



the western boundary, originally the Pacific Ocean, was, by the treaty of
Paris, reduced to the middle of the Mississippi. The part which our chief
magistrate took in a war, waged against us by the nation among whom he resided,
obliged us to discontinue him, and to name one within every State. In the
course of this war we were joined by France as an ally, and by Spain and
Holland as associates; having a common enemy, each sought that common enemy
wherever they could find him. France, on our invitation, landed a large army
within our territories, continued it with us two years, and aided us in
recovering sundry places from the possession of the enemy. But she did not
pretend to keep possession of the places rescued. Spain entered into the remote
western part of our territory, dislodged the common enemy from several of the
posts they held therein, to the annoyance of Spain; and perhaps thought it
necessary to remain in some of them, as the only means of preventing their
return. We, in like manner, dislodged them from several posts in the same
western territory, to wit: Vincennes, Cahokia, Kaskaskia, &c., rescued the
inhabitants , and retained constantly afterwards both them and the territory
under our possession and governmen t. At the conclusion of the war, Great
Britain, on the 30th of November, 1782, by treaty acknowledg ed our independen
ce, and our boundary, to wit: the Mississippi to the west, and the completion
of the 31st degree, &c., to the south. In her treaty with 



168 Jefferson's Works 

Spain, concluded seven weeks afterwards, to wit: January 20th, 1783, she ceded
to her the two Floridas, which had been defined in the proclamatio n of 1763,
and Minorca; and by the eighth article of the treaty, Spain agreed to restore,
without compensati on, all the territories conquered by her, and not included
in the treaty, either under the head of cessions or restitution s, that is to
say, all except Minorca and the Floridas. According to this stipulation, Spain
was expressly bound to have delivered up the possession s she had taken within
the limits of Georgia, to Great Britain, if they were conquests on Great
Britain, who was to deliver them over to the United States; or rather, she
should have delivered them to the United States themselves, as standing quoad
hoc in the place of Great Britain. And she was bound by natural rights to
deliver them to the same United States on a much stronger ground, as the real
and only proprietors of those places which she had taken possession of in a
moment of danger, without having had any cause of war with the United States,
to whom they belonged, and without having declared any; but, on the contrary,
conducting herself in other respects as a friend and associate. Vattel, 1. 3,
122. 



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 renunciatio n or abandonme nt by the former proprietor. Had Great Britain
been that 



Official Papers 169 



former proprietor, she was so far from confirming to Spain the right to the
territory of Georgia, invaded by Spain, that she expressly relinquishe d to the
United States any right that might remain in her; and afterwards completed that
relinquish ment, by procuring and consolidati ng with it the agreement of Spain
herself to restore such territory without compensati on. It is still more
palpable, that a war existing between two nations, as Spain and Great Britain,
could give to neither the right to seize and appropriat e the territory of a
third, which is even neutral, much less which is an associate in the war, as
the United States were with Spain. See, on this Subject, Grotius, 1. 3, C. 6, §
26. Puffendorf, 1. 8, c. 17, § 23. Vattel, 1. 3, § 197, 198. 



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 



170 Jefferson's Works 



argument on the subject, they will of course do it hypothetic ally; and in that
way may justly say, on the part of the United States; suppose that the United
States, exhausted by a bloody and expensive war with Great Britain, might have
been willing to have purchased peace by relinquishi ng, under a particular
contingenc y, a small part of their territory, it does not follow that the same
United States, recruited and better organized, must relinquish the same
territory to Spain without striking a blow. The United States, too, have
irrevocably put it out of their power to do it, by a new constitutio n, which
guarantees every State against the invasion of its territory. A disastrous war,
indeed, might, by necessity, supersede this stipulation, (as necessity is above
all law,) and oblige them to abandon a part of a State; but nothing short of
this can justify or obtain such an abandonme nt. 



The southern limits of Georgia depend chiefly on, 



1. The charter of Carolina to the lords proprietors , in 1663, extending
southwardl y 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 4th¹ Memoires de l'Amerique, 554. 



2. On the proclamatio n of the British King, in 1763, establishin g the
boundary between Georgia 



#¹ Mr. Short is desired to purchase this book at Amsterdam, or Paris, as he may
not find it at Madrid, and when it shall have answered the purposes of this
mission, let it be sent here for the use of the Secretary of State's office.# 



Official Papers 171 



and the two Floridas to begin on the Mississippi, in thirty-one degrees of
latitude north of the equator, and running eastwardly to the Appalachic ola;
thence, along the said river to the mouth of the Flint; thence, in a direct
line, to the source of St. Mary's river, and down the same to the ocean. This
proclamatio n will be found in Postlethwa yte voce "British America." 



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 intermediat e transaction , to wit: a convention concluded at the
Pardo, in 1739, whereby it was agreed that Ministers Plenipotent iary 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 proceeding s of the Plenipotent iaries are unknown here. Qu.
If it was on that occasion that the southern boundary of Carolina was
transferre d from latitude of Matheo or St. John's river further north to the
St. Mary's? Or was it the proclamatio n of 1763, which first removed this
boundary? [If the commission ers can procure in Spain a copy of whatever was
agreed on in consequenc e of the convention of the Pardo, it is a desirable
State paper here.) 



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



172 Jefferson's Works 



she would accede to them. This took place in conversatio ns and correspond ence
thereon between Mr. Jay, Minister Plenipotent iary for the United States at the
court at Madrid, the Marquis de La Fayette, and the Count de Florida Blanca.
Monsieur de La Fayette, in his letter of February 19, 1783, to the Count de
Florida Blanca, states the result of their conversatio ns on limits in these
words: "With respect to limits, his Catholic Majesty has adopted those that are
determined by the preliminari es of the 30th of November, between the United
States and the court of London." The Count de Florida Blanca, in his answer of
February 22d, to M. de La Fayette, says, "although it is his Majesty's
intention to abide for the present by the limits established by the treaty of
the 30th of November, 1782, between the English and the Americans, the King
intends to inform himself particularl y whether it can be in any ways
inconvenie nt or prejudicial to settle that affair amicably with the United
States;" and M. de La Fayette, in his letter of the same day to Mr. Jay,
wherein he had inserted the preceding, says, "on receiving the answer of the
Count de Florida Blanca, (to wit: his answer, before mentioned, to M. de La
Fayette,) I desired an explanation respecting the addition that relates to the
limits. I was answered, that it was a fixed principle to abide by the limits
established by the treaty between the English and the Americans; that his
remark related only to mere unimportan t details, which he wished to receive
from the Spanish 



Official Papers 173 



commandan ts, which would be amicably regulated, and would by no means oppose
the general principle. I asked him, before the Ambassado r of France, [M. de
Montmorin, ] whether he would give me his word of honor for it; he assured me
he would, and that I might engage it to the United States." See the report sent
herewith. 



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 



174 Jefferson's Works 



river, as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth; and that the
vessels should not be stopped, visited, or subjected to the payment of any duty
whatsoever . These are the words of the treaty, article VII. Florida was at the
same time ceded by Spain, and its extent westwardly was fixed to the lakes
Pontchartr ain and Maurepas, and the river Mississippi; and Spain received soon
after from France a cession of the island of New Orleans, and all the country
she held westward of the Mississippi, subject of course to our right of
navigating between that country and the island previously granted to us by
France. This right was not parcelled out to us in severalty, that is to say, to
each the exclusive navigation of so much of the river as was adjacent to our
several shores­in which way it would have been useless to all­but it was placed
on that footing on which alone it could be worth anything, to wit: as a right
to all to navigate the whole length of the river in common. The import of the
terms and the reason of the thing prove it was a right of common in the whole,
and not a several right to each of a particular part. To which may be added the
evidence of the stipulation itself, that we should navigate between New Orleans
and the western bank, which, being adjacent to none of our States, could be
held lay us only as a right of common. Such was the nature of our right to
navigate the Mississippi, as far as established by the Treaty of Paris. 



2. In the course of the Revolutiona ry war, in 



Official Papers 175 



which the thirteen colonies, Spain, and France, were opposed to Great Britain,
Spain took possession of several posts held by the British in Florida. It is
unnecessar y to inquire whether the possession of half a dozen posts scattered
through a country of seven or eight hundred miles extent, could be considered
as the possession and conquest of that country. If it w as, it gave still but
an inchoate right, as was before explained, which could not be perfected but by
the relinquish ment of the former possession at the close of the war; but
certainly it could not be considered as a conquest of the river, even against
Great Britain, since the possession of the shores, to wit, of the island of New
Orleans on the one side, and Louisiana on the other, having undergone no
change, the right in the water would remain the same, if considered only in its
relation to them; and if considered as a distinct right, independen t of the
shores, then no naval victories obtained by Spain over Great Britain, in the
course of the war, gave her the color of conquest over any water which the
British fleet could enter. Still less can she be considered as having conquered
the river, as against the United States, with whom she was not at war. We had a
common right of navigation in the part of the river between Florida, the island
of New Orleans, and the western bank, and nothing which passed between Spain
and Great Britain, either during the war, or at its conclusion, could lessen
that right. Accordingl y, at the treaty of 



176 Jefferson's Works 



November, 1782, Great Britain confirmed the rights of the United States to the
navigation of the river, from its source to its mouth, and in January, 1783,
completed the right of Spain to the territory of Florida, by an absolute
relinquish ment of all her rights in it. This relinquish ment could not include
the navigation held by the United States in their own right, because this right
existed in themselves only, and was not in Great Britain. If it added anything
to the rights of Spain respecting the river between the eastern and western
banks, it could only be that portion of right which Great Britain had retained
to her self in the treaty with the United States, held seven weeks before, to
wit, a right of using it in common with the United States. 



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 



Official Papers 177 



man, savage or civilized, unbiased by habit, who does not feel and attest this
truth? Accordingl y, in all tracts of country united under the same political
society, we find this natural right universally acknowledg ed and protected by
laying the navigable rivers open to all their inhabitants . When their rivers
enter the limits of another society, if the right of the upper inhabitants to
descend the stream is in any case obstructed, it is an act of force by a
stronger society against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind. The
late case of Antwerp and the Scheldt was a striking proof of a general union of
sentiment on this point; as it is believed that Amsterdam had scarcely an
advocate out of Holland, and even there its pretension s were advocated on the
ground of treaties, and not of natural right. (The commission ers would do well
to examine thoroughly what was written on this occasion.) The commission ers
will be able perhaps to find, either in the practice or the pretensions of
Spain, as to the Dauro, Tagus, and Guadiana, some acknowledg ments of this
principle on the part of that nation. This sentiment of right in favor of the
upper inhabitants must become stronger in the proportion which their extent of
country bears to the lower. The United States hold 600,000 square miles of
habitable territory on the Mississippi and its branches, and this river and its
branches afford many thousands of miles of navigable waters penetratin g this
territory in all its parts. The inhabitable grounds of 



#VOL. III-12# 



178 Jefferson's Works 



Spain below our boundary and bordering on the river, which alone can pretend
any fear of being incommode d by our use of the river, are not the thousandth
part of that extent. This vast portion of the territory of the United States
has no other outlet for its production s, and these production s are of the
bulkiest kind. And in truth, their passage down the river may not only be
innocent, as to the Spanish subjects on the river, but cannot fail to enrich
them far beyond their present condition. The real interests then of all the
inhabitants , upper and lower, concur in fact with their rights. 



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 modificatio n
of its exercise depends in a considerabl e degree on the convenienc y of the
nation through which they are to pass. But it is still a right as real as any
other right, however well-define d; 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 impracticab le 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 



Official Papers 179 



below, and founded in the same natural relations with the soil and water. And
the line at which their rights meet is to be advanced or withdrawn, so as to
equalize the inconveniences resulting to each party from the exercise of the
right by the other. This estimate is to be fairly made with a mutual
disposition to make equal sacrifices, and the numbers on each side are to have
their due weight in the estimate. Spain holds so very small a tract of
habitable land on either side below our boundary, that it may in fact be
considered as a strait of the sea; for though it is eighty leagues from our
boundary to the mouth of the river, yet it is only here and there in spots and
slips that the land rises above the level of the water in times of inundation.
There are, then, and ever must be, so few inhabitants on her part of the river,
that the freest use of its navigation may be admitted to us without their
annoyance. For authorities on this subject, see Grot. 1. 2. c. 2 § 11, 12, 13,
C. 3. § 7, 8, 12. Puffendorf, 1. 3. c. 3. § 3, 4, 5, 6. Wolff's Inst. § 310,
311, 312. Vattel, 1. 1. § 292. 1. 2. § 123 to 139.



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 



180 Jefferson's Works 



the other of the general bed of the river. Within the elbows thus made by the
channel, there is generally an eddy setting upwards, and it is by taking
advantage of these eddies, and constantly crossing from one to another of them,
that boats are enabled to ascend the river. Without this right the whole river
would be impracticab le both to the Americans and Spaniards. 



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,¹ (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 



#¹ Rivers belong to the public, that is to say to the Roman people.# 



Official Papers 181 



treaty of Paris, when a right was ceded to British subjects to navigate the
whole river, and expressly that part between the island of New Orleans and the
western bank, without stipulating a word about the use of the shores, though
both of them belonged then to France, and were to belong immediately to Spain.
Had not the use of the shores been considered as incident to that of the water,
it would have been expressly stipulated; since its necessity was too obvious to
have escaped either party. Accordingl y, all British subjects used the shores
habitually for the purposes necessary to the navigation of the river; and when
a Spanish governor undertook at one time to forbid this, and even cut loose the
vessels fastening to their shores, a British frigate went immediately , moored
itself to the shore opposite to the town of New Orleans, and set out guards
with orders to fire on such as might attempt to disturb her moorings. The
governor acquiesced, the right was constantly exercised afterwards, and no
interruptio n ever offered. 



This incidental right extends even beyond the shores, when circumstan ces
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. 



182 Jefferson's Works 



¹ "Riparum quoque usus publicus est, ut volunt jura gentium, sicut et ipsvts
fluminis usus publicus est. Itaque et navigium ad ripes appellere, et funes de
arboribus ibi natis religare, et navis onera in his locis reponere, liberum
quique est sicuti nec per flumen ipsum navigare quisquam prohibetur. " And
again, § 5, ² "littorum quoque usus publicus, sive juri gentium est, ut et
ipsius maris et ob id data est facultas volentibus, casas ibi sibi componere,
in quas se recipere possint," &c. Again, § 1. ² "Nemo igitur ad littora maris
accedere prohibitur; veluti deambulare aut navem appellere, sic tamen ut a
villis, id est domiciliis monumentis que ibi positis, et ab edificiis
abstineat, nec iis damnum inferat." 



Among incidental rights are those of having pilots, buoys, beacons, landmarks,
light-house s, &c., to guide the navigators. The establishme nt 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, 



¹ "The use of the banks belong also to the public by the laws of nations, as
the use of the river itself does. Therefore, every one is free to moor his
vessel to the bank, to fasten his cables to the trees growing on it, to deposit
the cargo of his vessel in those places in like manner as every one is free to
navigate the river itself." 



² "The use of the shores also belongs to the public, or is under the law of
nations, as is that of the sea itself. Therefore it is, that those who choose,
have a right to build huts there, into which they may betake themselves. " 



² "Nobody, therefore, is prohibited from landing on the sea shore, walking
there, or mooring their vessel there, so neverthele ss that they keep out of
the villas, that is, the habitations , monuments, and public buildings, erected
there, and do them no injury." 



Official Papers 183 



and refuse those of the other, both as to use and expense. 



Very peculiar circumstan ces attending the river Mississippi, require that the
incidental right of accommodat ion 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 modificatio
ns in proportion a; it interferes with their territorial right. But the
inconvenie nces 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 concurrenc e 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 circumstan ces
proclaim that it should be, and on the considerati ons which make it palpable
that a convenient spot placed under our exclusive occupation, and exempted from
the jurisdictio n and police of their governmen t, is far more likely to
preserve peace than a mere free port, where eternal 



184 Jefferson's Works 



altercation s would keep us in eternal ill humor with each other. The policy of
this measure, and indeed of a much larger concession, having been formerly
sketched in a paper of July 12th, 1790, sent to the commission ers severally,
they are now referred to that. 



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 commission ers 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 inundation s. This spot then
is what we would fix on, if obliged now to decide, with from one to as many
square miles of the circumjace nt lands as can be obtained, and comprehen ding
expressly the shores above and below the site of the fort as far as possible. 



Official Papers 185 



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 convenienc e of that Governmen t is entitled to so much respect and
attention on our part, that the arrangeme nt must be left to the managemen t of
the commission ers, who will doubtless use their best efforts to obtain all
they can for us. 



The worst footing on which the determinati on of the ground could be placed,
would be a reference to joint commission ers; because their disagreeme nt, 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 disagreeme nt, 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 contemplati on but
those then existing, or those at most who might exist under similar 

186 Jefferson's Works 



circumstan ces. America did not then exist as a nation; and the circumstan ces
of her position and commerce, are so totally dissimilar to everything then
known, that the treaties of that day were not adapted to any such being. They
would better fit even China than America; because, as a manufactur ing nation,
China resembles Europe more. When we solicited France to admit our whale oils
into her ports, though she had excluded all foreign whale oils, her minister
made the objection now under considerati on, and the foregoing answer was
given. It was found to be solid; and the whale oils of the United States are in
consequenc e admitted, though those of Portugal and the Hanse towns, and of all
other nations, are excluded. Again, when France and England were negotiating
their late treaty of commerce, the great dissimilitud e of our commerce (which
furnishes raw materials to employ the industry of others, in exchange for
articles whereon industry has been exhausted) from the commerce of the European
nations (which furnishes things ready wrought only) was suggested to the
attention of both negotiators , and that they should keep their nations free to
make particular arrangeme nts with ours, by communicat ing to each other only
the rights of the most favored European nation. Each was separately sensible of
the importance of the distinction; and as soon as it was proposed by the one,
it was acceded to by the other, and the word European was inserted in their
treaty. It may 



Official Papers 187 



fairly be considered then as the rational and received interpretat ion of the
diplomatic term, "gentis amicissimæ, "¹ that it has not in view a nation
unknown in many cases at the time of using the term, and so dissimilar in all
cases as to furnish no ground of just reclamation to any nation. 



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 apprehend s 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 observatio ns furnish sufficient matter for refutation. 



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



#¹"The most favored nation."# 



188 Jefferson's Works 



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 jurisdictio n in any part
northward or eastward of these boundaries . 



2. That our right be acknowledg ed 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 restriction s as to produce the least
possible inconvenie nce. But it should be altogether avoided, if possible, as
the parent of perpetual broils. 



4. That such convenienc es be allowed us ashore, as may render our right of
navigation practicable and under such regulations as may bona fide respect the
preservatio n 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 modificatio ns of it are left altogether to the
discretion and managemen t of the commission ers. 



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



Official Papers 189 



phrase should be admitted in the treaty which could express or imply that we
take the navigation of the Mississippi as a gram from Spain. But, however
disagreeabl e it would be to subscribe to such a sentiment, yet, where the
conclusion of a treaty to hang on that single objection, it would be expedient
to waive it, and to meet, at a future day, the consequenc es of any resumption
they may pretend to make, rather than at present, those of a separation without
coming to any agreement. 



We know not whether Spain has it in idea to ask a compensati on for the
ascertainm ent of our right. 



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



2. In the second place, we have a claim on Spain for indemnifica tion for nine
years' exclusion from that navigation, and a reimbursem ent of the heavy duties
(not less for the most part than 15 per cent on extravagan t valuations) levied
on the commoditie s she has permitted to pass to New Orleans. The
relinquishment of this, will be no unworthy equivalent for any accommodat ions
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
considerati on of such accommodat ions. We have nothing else to give in
exchange. For as to territory, we have neither the right nor the disposition to
alienate 



190 Jefferson's Works 



an inch of what belongs to any member of our Union. Such a proposition ,
therefore, is totally inadmissibl e, and not to be treated of for a moment. 



3. On the former conference s on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose
to blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingl y, specific
proposition s thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object, then, was to
obtain our renunciatio n of the navigation, and to hold out commercial
arrangeme nts, perhaps as a lure to us; perhaps, however, she might then, and
may now, really set a value on commercial arrangeme nts with us, and may
receive them as a considerati on for accommodat ing us in the navigation; or,
may wish for them, to have the appearance of receiving a considerati on.
Commercial arrangeme nts, 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 possession s in America, we are ready to
exchange the rights of native citizens, provided they be extended through the
whole possession s of both parties, but the proposition s of Spain, made on the
former occasion, (a copy of which accompanie s this,) were, that we should give
their merchants, vessels, and production s, 



Official Papers 191 



the privilege of native merchants, vessels, and production s, through the whole
of our possession s, and they give the same to ours only in Spain and the
Canaries. This is inadmissibl e, because unequal; and, as we believe that Spain
is not ripe for an equal exchange on this basis, we avoid proposing it. 



2. Though treaties, which merely exchange the rights of the most favored
nations, are not without all inconvenie nce, yet they have their convenienc es
also. It is an important one, that they leave each party free to make what
internal regulations they please, and to give what preference s they find
expedient to native merchants, vessels, and production s. 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 embarrass ment
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 reciprocati on 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 



192 Jefferson's Works 



of fitting out privateers, or of capturing merchant vessels. The French treaty,
therefore, is proposed as the model. In this, however, the following changes
are to be made. 



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 inapplicabl e to Spain. 



Article 8 to be omitted, as unnecessar y with Morocco, and inefficaciou s, 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 inapplicabl e. 



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 



Official Papers 193 



from the enemies of that other, must be qualified as it is in the r 9th article
of the Prussian treaty; as the stipulation in the latter part of the article,
"that no shelter or refuge shall be given in the ports of the one to such as
shall have made prize on the subjects of the other of the parties," would
forbid us in case of a war between France and Spain, to give shelter in our
ports to prizes made by the latter on the former, while the first part of the
article would oblige us to shelter those made by the former on the latter­a
very dangerous covenant, and which ought never to be repeated in any other
instance. 



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 possession s in America, and particularl y 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 recommend ed to the best endeavors of
the commission ers 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-establis h 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, 



#VOL. III-13# 



194 Jefferson's Works 



by the Revolution treaty, are restrained to the southeaste rn parts of Yucatan.




Article 31. The act of ratification , on our part, may require a twelvemont h
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
representa tive 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 arrangeme nt, 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 commission ers 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 Governmen t, as yet, so far developed
themselves, as that we can know to what degree we may 



Official Papers 195 



or must have recourse to commerce for the purposes of revenue. No common
considerati on, therefore, ought to induce us, as yet, to arrangeme nts of this
kind. Perhaps nothing should do it with any nation, short of the privileges of
natives in all their possession s, foreign and domestic. 



It were to be wished, indeed, that some positively favorable stipulation s
respecting our grain, flour, and fish, could be obtained, even on our giving
reciprocal advantages to some other commoditie s 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 convenienc e, Spain may insist on doing the same for other
articles for her convenienc e, and thus our commission ers 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 considerabl e 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



196 Jefferson's Works 



them. On this considerati on, and on the motive of cultivating our friendship,
perhaps the commission ers may induce them to restore this commodity to the
footing on which it was, on opening the conference s with Mr. Gardoqui, on the
26th day of July, 1785. If Spain says, "do the same by your tonnage on our
vessels," the answer may be, that our foreign tonnage affects Spain very
little, and other nations very much; whereas the duty on flour in Spain affects
us very much, and other nations very little. Consequent ly, there would be no
equality in reciprocal relinquish ment, as there had been none in the
reciprocal innovation; and Spain, by insisting on this, would, in fact, only be
aiding the interests of her rival nations, to whom we should be forced to
extend the same indulgence. At the time of opening the conference s, too, we
had, as yet, not erected any system; our governmen t itself being not yet
erected. Innovation then was unavoidabl e on our part, if it be innovation to
establish a system. We did it on fair and general ground; on ground favorable
to Spain. But they had a system, and, therefore, innovation was avoidable on
their part. 



It is known to the commission ers that we found it expedient to ask the
interpositio n of France, lately, to bring on this settlement of our boundary,
and the navigation of the Mississippi. How far that interpositio n has
contribute d to produce it, is uncertain. But we have reason to believe that
her further interferenc e would not produce an agreeable effect 



Official Papers 197 



on Spain. The commission ers, therefore, are to avoid all further communicat
ions on the subject with the ministers of France, giving them such explanation
s as may preserve their good disposition s. But if, ultimately, they shall find
themselves unable to bring Spain to agreement on the subject of the navigation
and boundary, the interpositio n of France, as a mutual friend, and the
guarantee of our limits, is then to be asked, in whatever light Spain may
choose to consider it. 



Should the negotiation s 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 discontinue d without coming to any agreement,
the Governmen t of the United States cannot be responsible for the longer
forbearanc e of their western inhabitants . At the same time the abandonme nt
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 permanentl y. 



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 



198 Jefferson's Works 



herself of other parts of our territory. But she has lately taken and fortified
a new post on the Walnut hills, above the mouth of the Yazoo river, and far
above the 31st degree. This garrison ought to have been instantly dislodged;
but for our wish to be in friendship with Spain, and our confidence in her
assurances "to bide by the limits established in our treaty with England,"
complaints of this unfriendly and uncandid procedure may be brought forward or
not, as the commission ers shall see expedient. 



Report on the case of Charles Russell and others, claiming certain lands. 



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
commonwea lth, 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 commonwea lth, stating that a considerabl e 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 substitutin g in lieu
thereof the tract of country between the said boundary and the rivers
Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and 



Official Papers 199 



subjecting the same to the claims of their officers and soldiers. That the said
Charles Russell had in consequenc e thereof, directed warrants for two thousand
six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds acres of land to be located within the
said tract of country, but that the same belonging to the Chickasaws , he is
unable to obtain a right thereto, and that there are other officers and
soldiers of the said commonwea lth under like circumstan ces: 



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 commonwea lth, becomes proper to be referred to the
legislature of the United States for their considerati on. 



Report relative to negotiation s at Madrid. 



March 7, 1792. The Secretary of State having understood , from communicat ions
with the commission ers 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 



200 Jefferson's Works 



that the conference s would extend to all the matters which were under
negotiation on the former occasion with Mr. Gardoqui, and particularl y to some
arrangeme nts of commerce, is of opinion, that, to renew the conference s on
this subject also, since they desire it, will be but friendly and respectful,
and can lead to nothing without our own consent; and that, to refuse it, might
obstruct the settlement of the questions of navigation and boundary; and,
therefore, reports to the President of the United States, the following
observatio ns and instruction s to the commission ers of the United States,
appointed to negotiate with the court of Spain a treaty or convention relative
to the navigation of the Mississippi; which observatio ns and instruction s, he
is of opinion, should be laid before the Senate of the United States, and their
decision be desired, whether they will advise and consent that a treaty be
entered into by the commission ers of the United States with Spain conformabl e
thereto. 



After stating to our commission ers 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 conference s on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose to
blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingl y, specific proposition
s thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object then was to obtain our
renunciatio n of sels 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 



Official Papers 101 



tribute of one hundred thousand dollars to be annually paid. Yet perceiving
that France, embarrasse d at home with her domestic affairs, was less capable
of acting abroad, they took six vessels of that nation in the course of the
last year, and retain the captives, forty-four in number, in slavery. 



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 authentical ly advanced; as from a principle of self-conde
mnation, the governmen ts 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 consequent ly, 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 



102 Jefferson's Works 



1789, differing in small degrees, but concurring in the main. From these it
results that they have usually had about nine chebecs, from ten to thirty-six
guns, and four galleys, which have been reduced by losses to six chebecs and
four galleys. They have a forty-gun frigate on the stocks, and expect two
cruisers from the grand seignior. The character of their vessels is, that they
are sharp built and swift, but so light as not to stand the broadside of a good
frigate. Their guns are of different calibres, unskilfully pointed and worked.
The vessels illy manoeuvre d, but crowded with men, one third Turks, the rest
Moors, of determined bravery, and resting their sole hopes on boarding. But two
of these vessels belong to the governmen t, the rest being private property. If
they come out of the harbor together, they separate immediately in quest of
prey; and it is said they were never known to act together in any instance. Nor
do they come out at all, when they know there are vessels cruising for them.
They perform three cruises a year, between the middle of April and November,
when they unrig and lay up for the winter. When not confined within the
straits, they rove northwardl y to the channel, and westwardly to the westward
islands. 



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



Should the United States propose to vindicate 



Official Papers 103 



their commerce by arms, they would, perhaps, think it prudent to possess a
force equal to the whole of that which may be opposed to them. What that equal
force would be, will belong to another department to say. 



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 apprehend ed for some time, the Atlantic
`will immediately become the principal scene of their piracies: their peace
with Spain having reduced the profits of their Mediterran ean cruises below the
expenses of equipment. 



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



104 Jefferson's Works 



shall be called forth, and how far they will enable the Executive to engage, in
the forms of the constitutio n, the co-operatio n of other powers. If tribute
or ransom, it will rest with them to limit and provide the amount; and with the
Executive, observing the same constitutio nal forms, to take arrangeme nts for
employing it to the best advantage. 



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, considerin g 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 Philadelphi a 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 



Plenipotent iary 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
indissolubl e 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 



Official Papers 105 



signed by the dey and other officers. If it were agreed to, he would send his
secretary by land to Marseilles, and from thence, by water, to Tripoli, who
should bring it back by the same route, signed by the dey, &c. He had proposed
so small a sum in considerati on of the circumstan ces, but declared it was not
half of what had been lately paid them by Spain. If we chose to treat upon a
different plan, he would make a treaty perpetual upon the payment of twelve
thousand five hundred guineas for the first year, and three thousand guineas
annually, until the thirty thousand guineas were paid. It was observed that
these were large sums, and vastly beyond expectation ; but his excellency
answered, that they never made a treaty for less. Upon the arrival of a prize,
the dey and other officers are entitled, by their laws, to large shares, by
which they might make greater profits than those sums amounted to, and they
never would give up this advantage for less. 



"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 communicat e all to Mr. Jefferson, and persuade him to come here,
that we may join in farther conference s, 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
indispensa ble to conclude with the four powers at this rate, besides a present
to the ambassador s, 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
Plenipotent iary 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 



106 Jefferson's Works 



would be much facilitated by a previous one with the Ottoman Porte, it was
agreed between Mr. Adams and myself, that on my return I should consult, on
this subject, the Count De Vergennes, whose long residence at Constantin ople
rendered him the best judge of its expediency . Various circumstan ces have put
it out of my power to consult him till to-day. I stated to him the difficulties
we were likely to meet with at Algiers, and asked his opinion, what would be
the probable expense of a diplomatic mission to Constantin ople, and what its
effects at Algiers. He said that the expense would be very great; for that
presents must be made at that court, and every one would be gaping after them;
and that it would not procure us a peace at Algiers one penny the cheaper. He
observed that the Barbary States acknowledg ed a sort of vassalage to the
Porte, and availed themselves of that relation when anything was to be gained
by it; but that whenever it subjected them to the demand from the Porte, they
totally disregarde d it; that money was the sole agent. He cited the present
example of Spain, which, though having a treaty with the Porte, would probably
be obliged to buy a peace at Algiers, at the expense of upwards of six millions
of livres. I told him we had calculated, from the demands and information of
the Tripoline ambassador at London, that to make peace with the four Barbary
States would cost us between two and three hundred thousand guineas, if bought
with money. 



"The sum did not seem to exceed his expectation s. I mentioned to him, that
considerin g the uncertaint y of a peace, when bought, perhaps Congress might
think it more eligible to establish a cruise of frigates in the Mediterran ean,
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 administeri ng 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 



Official Papers 107 



the necessary orders to the captains of his cruisers not to take the Neapolitan
vessels. The dey said the meaning of the truce was not to take the Neapolitan
cruisers, but if his chebecks should meet the Neapolitan merchantm en to take
them and send them for Algiers. The ambassador said, the Neapolitan cruisers
would not want a pass on those terms. The dey said, if his chebecks should meet
either men of war or merchant vessels, to take them; so gave orders accordingl
y. The Algerines sailed the 9th instant, and are gone, I believe, off the coast
of Italy. This shows there is very little confidence to be put in the royal
word. No principle of national honor will bind those people; and I believe not
much confidence to be put in them in treaties. The Algerines are not inclinable
to a peace with the Neapolitans . I hear of no negotiation . When the two
frigates arrive with the money for the ransom of the slaves, I believe they are
done with the Neapolitans ." 



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; accordingl y, the
Danes have evacuated the Mediterran ean 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-robber s, the terror and scourge of the Christians. The reason the
Algerines have not committed any depredatio ns 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 governmen t here money and
presents, In fact, the Algerines are trying their endeavors to find 



108 Jefferson's Works 



some nation to break the peace with them. I think, if they had treated the
English in such a manner as they have the French, that the English would resent
it." 



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



"What dependenc e or faith could be given to a peace with the Algerines,
considerin g their present haughtines s, 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 consequenc e 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 Plenipotent
iary of the 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 accumulati ng 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 o f 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  

to Row Galleys€                 men, and so in proportion. 



Official Papers 109 



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-galley s, 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.-Capta in 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    "      "           "         "



110 Jefferson's Works 



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    "      "           "         "



February 5, 1788.-State ment by the inhabitants of Algiers, spoken of in the
report.  



9 vessels from 36 down to 20 guns.  

4 or 5 smaller. 



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. 



No. 7.­Translat ion of a letter from Count D'Estaing to the Hon. Thomas
Jefferson, Esq. Paris, May 17, 1784.  

SIR,­ In giving you an account of an opinion of Mr. Massiac, and which
absolutely correspond s 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 circumstan ces, that I cannot ascertain,
may exact. 



This Secretary of State, afterwards vice-Admir al, 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 governmen t was about to
adopt. They wanted him to undertake a bombardme nt; 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-anch oring, 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 



Official Papers 111 



there, and there is no Barbarian power thus confined, which would not sue for
peace. 



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 preparatio n 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 manoeuvre s, 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
refreshmen ts 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 . Bombardme nts 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 insupporta ble 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
counteract ed 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 unsuccessf ul 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 merchantm en 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 overcharge d with
men, are moreover so badly armed and manoeuvre d 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 opportunit y of offering, still more particularl y,
the homage, the sincere attachment, and the respect with which I have the honor
to be, &c. ESTAING. 



112 Jefferson's Works 



Report on the Algerine Prisoners. 



December 28, 1790. The Secretary of State, having had under considerati on 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 Representa tives, 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 expectation s, 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 Philadelphi a, was taken by another Algerine, about fifty
leagues westward of Lisbon. These vessels, with their cargoes and crews, 



Official Papers 113 



twenty-one persons in number, were carried into Algiers. 



Congress had some time before commission ed Ministers Plenipotent iary 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 accordingl
y appointed for Algiers, and his instruction s prepared, when the Ministers
Plenipotent iary received information of these captures. Though the ransom of
captives was not among the objects expressed in their commission s, 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 supplement ary 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 disapprove
d. 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 



#VOL. III-8# 



114 Jefferson's Works 



but little from that demand. The agent, therefore, returned in 1786, without
having effected either peace or ransom. 



In the beginning of the next year, 1787, the Minister Plenipotent iary 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 engagemen t
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
Plenipotent iary



Official Papers 115 

at Paris received their orders to embrace the offers of the Mathurins. This he
immediately notified to the general, observing, however, that he did not desire
him to enter into any engagemen ts till a sufficient sum to cover them should
be actually deposited in Paris. The general wished that the whole might be kept
rigorously secret, as, should the barbarians suspect him to be acting for the
United States, they would demand such sums as he could never agree to give,
even with our consent, because it would injure his future purchases from them.
He said he had information from his agent at Algiers, that our captives
received so liberal a daily allowance as to evince that it came from a public
source. He recommend ed that this should be discontinue d; engaging that he
would have an allowance administere d to them, much short indeed of what they
had hitherto received, but such as was given to his own countryme n, quite
sufficient for physical necessities, and more likely to prepare the opinion,
that as they were subsisted by his charity, they were to be redeemed by it
also. These ideas, suggested to him by the danger of raising his market, were
approved by the Minister Plenipotent iary; because, this being the first
instance of a redemption by the United States, it would form a precedent,
because a high price given by us might induce these pirates to abandon all
other nations in pursuit of Americans; whereas, the contrary would take place,
could our price of redemption be fixed at the lowest point. 



116 Jefferson's Works 



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 discontinue d, 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 circumstan ces, and drew from them the most afflicting reproaches . 



It was a twelvemont h 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 considerabl e 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




Official Papers 117 



as three thousand livres, or five hundred and fifty-five dollars a man. He
wrote immediately to consult a confidentia l agent at Marseilles, on the best
mode of carrying this business into effect; from whom he received the answer
No. 2, hereto annexed. 



Nothing further was known of his progress or prospects, when the House of
Representa tives 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 withdrawin g the means,
seems to have suspended the proceeding s of the Mathurins in the purposes of
their institution. 



It is time, therefore, to look about for something more promising, without
relinquishi ng, in the meanwhile, the chance of success through them. Endeavors
to collect information, which have been continued a considerabl e 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 



118 Jefferson's Works 



to him personally. Passing over the ransoms of the Mathurins, which are kept
for below the common level by special circumstan ces: 



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-inform ed
inhabitant of Algiers assured the Minister Plenipotent iary 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 



Official Papers 119 



Scotch boy, a common mariner, was actually redeemed at 8,000 livres, equal to
$1,481, which is within nineteen dollars of the price Simpson states for common
men; and the Charge des Affaires of the United States at Paris is informed that
the whole may be redeemed at that rate, adding fifty per cent, on the captains,
which would bring it to $1,571 a man. 



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. 



120 Jefferson's Works 



Perhaps Turkish captives may be objects of greater partiality with them, as
their governmen t 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 Governmen t. 



The liberation of our citizens has an intimate connection with the liberation
of our commerce in the Mediterran ean, now under the considerati on 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. 



The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representa tives,
the representa tion from the General Court of the Commonwea lth of Massachuse
tts, on the subjects of the cod and whale fisheries, together with the several
papers accompanyi ng it, has had the same under considerati on, and thereupon
makes the following report: 



February 1, 1791  The representa tion 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. 



Official Papers 121 



That, previous to the same period, the cod fishery of that State employed four
thousand men, and twenty-eig ht 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 embarrass
ments, which, if not removed, or lessened, will render the fisheries every year
less extensive and important. 



That these embarrass ments are heavy duties on their produce abroad, and
bounties on that of their competitors ; and duties at home on several articles,
particularl y 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 circumstan ce, in being as unprofitabl e 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 circumstan ces which
have attended their prosperity, and their decline; to judge of the embarrass
ments which are said to oppress ours; to see whether they depend on our own
will, and may, therefore, be remedied 



122 Jefferson' s Works 



immediately by ourselves, or, whether depending on the will of others, they are
without the reach of remedy from us, either directly or indirectly. 



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



Within twenty years after the supposed discovery of Newfoundla nd, 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 adventurer s in that
fishery were the Biscayans, of Spain, the Basques and Bas-Breton s, of France,
all united anciently in language, and still in habits, and in extreme poverty.
The last circumstan ce enabled them long to retain a considerabl e 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
appurtenan ce 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 intermediat e progress, we only know that, so
late as 1744, the French employed there five hundred and sixty-four ships, and
twenty-sev en thousand five hundred seamen, and took one million two hundred
and forty-six 



Official Papers 123 



thousand quintals of fish, which was three times the extent to which England
and her colonies together, carried this fishery at that time. 



The English, in the beginning of the seventeent h century, had employed,
generally, about one hundred and fifty vessels in the Newfoundla nd 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 governmen t 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 Newfoundla nd; under
these encourage ments, 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-fou r
thousand four hundred and twenty tons, nine thousand seven hundred and
twenty-two seamen, taking two hundred thousand quintals, while America 



124 Jefferson's Works 



alone, for some three or four years before that, and so on, to the commencem
ent of the late war, employed six hundred and sixty-five vessels, of twenty-fiv
e thousand six hundred and fifty tons, and four thousand four hundred and five
seamen, and took from three hundred and fifty thousand to upwards of four
hundred thousand quintals of fish, and England a still greater quantity, five
hundred and twenty-six thousand quintals, as is said. 



Spain had formally relinquishe d her pretension s to a participatio n 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 appropriat ed 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;



Official Papers 125 



and, in 1787, but six thousand men, and one hundred and twenty-eig ht thousand
quintals. She seems not yet sensible that the unthriftine ss of her fisheries
proceeds from the want of economy, and not the want of markets; and that the
encourage ment of our fishery abridges that of a rival nation, whose power on
the ocean has long threatened the loss of all balance on that element. 

The plan of the English Governmen t, 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 Mediterran ean 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, 



126 Jefferson's Works 



and 1789, on an average, five hundred and thirty nine vessels, of nineteen
thousand one hundred and eighty-five tons, three thousand two hundred and
eighty-sev en seamen, and took two hundred and fifty thousand six hundred and
fifty quintals of fish. * * * And an official paper * * shows that, in the last
of those years, our exportation amounted to three hundred and seventy-fi ve
thousand and twenty quintals, and thirty thousand four hundred and sixty-one
barrels; deduction made of three thousand seven hundred and one quintals, and
six thousand three hundred and forty-three barrels of foreign fish, received
and re-exporte d. * * Still, however, the calculation s * * which accompany the
representa tion, show that the profits of the sales in the years 1787 and 1788,
were too small to afford a living to the fishermen, and on those of 1789, there
was such a loss as to withdraw thirty-thre e vessels, of the town of Marblehead
alone, from the further pursuit of this business; and the apprehensi on is,
that, without some public aid, those still remaining will continue to withdraw,
and this whole commerce be engrossed by a single nation. 



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 disadvanta ges
which oppose us in this conflict. 



Official Papers 127 



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 manufactur es, 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, consequent ly, 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 Newfoundla nd fishery, nor can
support it without national aid, we can make a living profit, if vent for our
fish can be procured. 



128 Jefferson's Works 



Of the disadvanta ges 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 disadvanta ges, add
ineffectual duties on the importation of foreign fish. In justificatio n 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 merchantab le 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 



Official Papers 129 



drawback, or bounty; and whether the loss of markets abroad, may not, in some
degree, be compensate d, by creating markets at home; to which might contribute
the constitutin g fish a part of the military ration, in stations not too
distant from navigation, a part of the necessary sea stores of vessels, and the
encouragin g private individuals to let the fishermen share with the
cultivator, in furnishing the supplies of the table. A habit introduced from
motives of patriotism, would soon be followed from motives of taste; and who
will undertake to fix the limits to this demand, if it can be once excited,
with a nation which doubles, and will continue to double, at very short
periods? 



Of the disadvanta ges which depend on others, are -



1. The loss of the Mediterran ean 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 considerati on 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 



#VOL. III-9# 



130 Jefferson's Works 



the way to the fishery of Newfoundla nd. They began it on their own coasts, but
soon found that the principal residence of the whale was in the Northern seas,
into which, therefore, they pursued him. In 1578 they employed twenty-fiv e
ships in that business. The Dutch and Hamburghe rs took it up after this, and
about the middle of the seventeent h century the former employed about two
hundred ships, and the latter about three hundred and fifty. 



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 admeasure ment 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-eig ht and sixty-seve n vessels, till the
commencem ent 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 



Official Papers 131 



number. So that their fishery, notwithsta nding a bounty of thirty florins a
man, as well as that of Hamburg, is now nearly out of competition . 



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, accidentall y, 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 



132 Jefferson's Works 



at 50 degrees of Fahrenheit' s thermomete r, while that of the spermaceti whale
is limpid to 41, and of the Greenland whale to 36, of the same thermomete r. It
is only worth taking, therefore, when it falls in the way of the fishermen, but
not worth seeking, except when they have failed of success against the
spermaceti whale, in which case, this kind, easily found and taken, serves to
moderate their loss. 



In 1771 the Americans had one hundred and eighty-thr ee 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-se ven 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 opportunit y 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 consumptio n. Finding, on a review of the
subject, at that time, that their bounties had cost the Governmen t £13 IOS.
sterling a man, annually, or sixty per cent on the cargoes, a part of which
went consequent ly to ease the purchases of this article made by foreign
nations, they reduced the northern bounty 



Official Papers 133 



from forty to thirty shillings the ton of admeasure ment. 



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 encourage ment, 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 neighborho od of
their ancient country and friends others to Great Britain, postponing country
and friends to high, premiums. 



The Governmen t of France could not be inattentive



134 Jefferson's Works 



to these proceeding s. They saw the danger of letting four or five thousand
seamen, of the best in the world, be transferre d to the marine strength of
another nation, and carry over with them an art, which they possessed almost
exclusively . To give time for a counterpla n, the Marquis de Lafayette, the
valuable friend and citizen of this, as well as that country, wrote to a
gentleman in Boston, to dissuade the fishermen from accepting the British
proposals, and to assure them that their friends in France would endeavor to do
something for them. A vessel was then arrived from Halifax at Nantucket, to
take off those who had proposed to remove. Two families had gone abroad, and
others were going. In this moment, the letter arriving, suspended their
designs. Not another went abroad, and the vessel returned to Halifax with only
the two families. 



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 admeasure ment of the vessels they should equip for the
whale fishery, with some other advantages . Nine families only, of thirty-thre
e persons, accepted 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 



Official Papers 135 

follow their calling from their native country, by giving them a new market for
their oils, instead of the old one they had lost. The duties were, therefore,
abated on American whale oil immediately , and a further abatement promised by
the letter No. 8, and, in December, 1787, the arrêt No. 9 was passed. 



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 Governmen t, perhaps,
too, by extraordina ry indemnifica tions, 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
consequenc e, the ensuing year from two hundred and twenty-two to one hundred
and seventy-ei ght 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 



136 Jefferson's Works 



(near twenty-sev en dollars) the ton, and, on about one hundred natives on
board the seventeen ships, (for there were one hundred and fifty Americans
engaged by the voyage) came to 2,225 livres, or about 416 2/3 dollars a man. 



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 continuanc e of this fishery, not to say its increase. Against
prohibitory duties in one country, and bounties to the adventurer s 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-seve n years,
being about one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year. The States General,
thereupon, gave 



Official Papers 137 



a bounty of thirty guilders a man to the fishermen. A person immediately
acquainted with the British whale fishery, and whose information merits
confidence, has given assurance that the ships employed in their northern
fishery, in 1788, sunk £800 each, on an average, more than the amount of the
produce and bounties. An English ship of three hundred tons and forty-two
seamen, in this fishery, generally brings home, after a four months' voyage,
twenty-fiv e tons of oil, worth £437 IOS. sterling; but the wages of the
officers and seamen will be £400; there remain but £37 IOS., not worth taking
into account, towards the outfit and merchants' profit. These, then, must be
paid by the Governmen t; and it is on this idea that the British bounty is
calculated. 



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, 



138 Jefferson's Works 

to pay all expenses, and subsist the owners and navigators. These expenses are
great, as the voyages are generally of twelve months' duration. No hope can
arise of their condition being bettered by an augmentati on of the price of
oil. This is kept down by the competition of the vegetable oils, which answer
the same purposes, not quite so well, but well enough to become preferable,
were the price to be raised, and so well, indeed, as to be more generally used
than the fish oils for lighting houses and cities. 



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 continuanc e there
can be made supportabl e. 



Official Papers 139 



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 fraudulentl y, 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 commencin g 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. 



140 Jefferson's Works 



The late Governmen t 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
Governmen t, as wise and friendly, will also view us, not as rivals, but as
co-operato rs against a common rival. Friendly arrangeme nts with them, and
accommodat ion to mutual interest, rendered easier by friendly disposition s
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 arrangeme nts with that nation; besides five-eighth s
of our whale oil, and two-thirds of our salted fish, they take from us
one-fourth of our tobacco, three-fourt hs of our live stock * * a considerabl e
and growing portion of our rice, great supplies, occasionall y, of other grain;
in 1789, which, indeed, was extraordina ry, 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 



Official Papers 141 



constructio n, without any change of law, it was made to exclude our oils from
their ports, when carried in our vessels. On some change of circumstan ce, it
was construed back again to the reception of our oils, on paying always,
however, the same duty of eighteen pounds five shillings. This serves to show
that the tenure by which we hold the admission of this commodity in their
markets, is as precarious as it is hard. Nor can it be announced that there is
any disposition on their part to arrange this or any other commercial matter,
to mutual convenienc e. The ex parte regulations which they have begun for
mounting their navigation on the ruins of ours, can only be opposed by counter
regulations on our part. And the loss of seamen, the natural consequenc e of
lost and obstructed markets for our fish and oil, calls, in the first place,
for serious and timely attention. It will be too late when the seaman shall
have changed his vocation, or gone over to another interest. If we cannot
recover and secure for him these important branches of employment , it behooves
us to replace them by others equivalent. We have three nurseries for forming
seamen: 



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 indemnifica tion 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 



142 Jefferson's Works 

it which is now in the hands of foreigners, and which we may resume into our
own, without touching the rights of those nations who have met us in fair
arrangeme nts by treaty, or the interests of those who, by their voluntary
regulations , have paid so just and liberal a respect to our interests, as
being measured back to them again, places both parties on as good ground,
perhaps, as treaties could place them­the proportion, I say, of our carrying
trade, which may be resumed without affecting either of these description s of
nations, will find constant employment for ten thousand seamen, be worth two
millions of dollars, annually, will go on augmenting with the population of the
United States, secure to us a full indemnifica tion for the seamen we lose, and
be taken wholly from those who force us to this act of self-protec tion in
navigation. 



Hence, too, would follow, that their Newfoundla nd ships, not receiving
provisions from us in their bottoms, nor permitted (by a law of their own) to
receive in ours, must draw their subsistenc e 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, consequent ly, the mass
of seamen whose interests are in distress; and No. 17, the materials for
indemnifica tion. 



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



Official Papers 143 



difference of circumstan ces, other regulations equivalent can give no
reasonable ground of complaint to any nation. Admitting their right of keeping
their markets to themselves, ours cannot be denied of keeping our carrying
trade to ourselves. And if there be anything unfriendly in this, it was in the
first example. 



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, consequent ly 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-freigh t 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 incalculabl e 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 encroachme nt, 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. 



144 Jefferson's Works 



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 transportat ion; but that, in order to create transportat ion, 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
calculation s on a full view of all circumstan ces. 



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 governmen t from the obligation of effectuatin g
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 arrangeme nts towards those nations whose arrangeme nts
are friendly to us, and the residue be compensate d by giving to the seamen
thrown out of business the certainty of employment in another branch, of which
we have the sole disposal. 



Official Papers 145 



Opinion against the constitutio nality of a National Bank. 



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



1. To form the subscriber s 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 subscriber s 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 Distributio n. 

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 communicat e 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 Constitutio n controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit
Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit
them to communicat e a similar right to other corporate bodies. VOL. III-10# 



146 Jefferson's Works 



the control of the State legislature s; and so, probably, they will be
construed. 



I consider the foundation of the Constitutio n as laid on this ground: That
"all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitutio n, 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 incorporati on of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in
my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitutio n. 



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 Constitutio n. 



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. 



Official Papers 147 



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 Constitutio n 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. Accordingl y the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of
trade, but as "productiv e of considerabl e advantages to trade." Still less
are these powers covered by any other of the special enumeratio ns. 



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."




148 Jefferson's Works 



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 independen t power to do any act they please, which might
be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent
enumeratio n's 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 constructio n 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 



Official Papers 149 



which formed the Constitutio n. A proposition was made to them to authorize
Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate .
But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in
debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would
render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the
subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitutio n. 



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
consequent ly not authorized by this phrase. 



It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenienc e in the
collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitutio n allows only
the means which are "necessary ," not those which are merely "convenien t" for
effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of constructio n be allowed
to this phrase as to give any non-enume rated power, it will go to every one,
for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenienc e 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 Constitutio n restrained them to
the necessary means, that is to say, to those 



150 Jefferson's Works 



means without which the grant of power would be nugatory. 



But let us examine this convenienc e and see what it is. The report on this
subject, page 3, states the only general convenienc e to be, the preventing the
transportat ion and re-transpo rtation 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 governmen t 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 governmen t 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 consequent ly 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 governmen t 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 



Official Papers 151 



then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displaceme nt of the main mass of
the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it
cannot be prevented even with that aid. 



Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury
orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenienc e, cannot
constitute the necessity which the constitutio n makes the ground for assuming
any non-enume rated power. 



Besides; the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangeme nts 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 arrangeme nt, but on their own terms, and the public
not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphi a, I
believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangeme nt
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 nonenumer ated 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 



152 Jefferson's Works 



single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank,
whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow
from this superior convenienc y, that there exists anywhere a power to
establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it. 



Can it be thought that the Constitutio n intended that for a shade or two of
convenienc e, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the
most ancient and fundamenta l laws of the several States; such as those against
Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distributio
n, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a
necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitutio n of
laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprude nce. Will
Congress be too straitlaced to carry the Constitutio n into honest effect,
unless they may pass over the foundation ­laws of the State governmen t for the
slightest convenienc e of theirs? 



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



Official Papers 153 



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 unauthoriz ed by the Constitutio n; 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
Constitutio n has placed a check in the negative of the President. 



Opinion relative to locating the Ten Mile Square for the Federal Governmen t,
and building the Federal city. 



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



The commission ers to be called into action. 



Deeds of cession to be taken from the land-holde rs. 



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



Proclamatio n 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 governmen t, 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 



154 Jefferson's Works 



a town legislature, and things may be done before there is one to prevent them,
which yet it would be desirable to prevent, it would seem justifiable and
expedient that the President should form a capitulary of such regulations as he
may think necessary to be observed, until there shall be a town legislature to
undertake this office; such capitulary to be indented, signed, sealed, and
recorded, according to the laws of conveyance in Maryland. And to be referred
to in every deed for conveyance of the lots to purchasers , so as to make a
part thereof. The same thing might be effected, by inserting special covenants
for every regulation in every deed; but the former method is the shortest. I
cannot help again suggesting here one regulation formerly suggested, to wit: To
provide for the extinguish ment of fires, and the openness and convenienc e of
the town, by prohibiting houses of excessive height. And making it unlawful to
build on any one's purchase any house with more than two floors between the
common level of the earth and the eaves, nor with any other floor in the roof
than one at the eaves. To consider in what way the contracts for the public
buildings shall be made, and whether as many bricks should not be made this
summer as may employ brick-layer s in the beginning of the season of 1792; till
more can be made in that season. 



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



Official Papers 155 



and that consent may be so far counted on, as to render it expedient to declare
the location at once. 



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 lengthenin g the course from the court-hous e 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 Bladensbur
gh, because it is a better location, and I think will certainly be confirmed by
Maryland. 



156 Jefferson's Works 



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
nonconcurr ence 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 concurrenc e, 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. 



Report on the policy of securing particular marks to Manufactur ers, by law. 



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



Official Papers 157 



Breck and others, proprietors of a sail-cloth manufactor y in Boston, praying
that they may have the exclusive privilege of using particular marks for
designatin g the sail-cloth of their manufactor y, has had the same under
considerati on, and thereupon 



Reports, That it would, in his opinion, contribute to fidelity in the execution
of manufactur ers, to secure to every manufactor y an exclusive right to some
mark on its wares, proper to itself . 



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 jurisdictio n: Manufactur es 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 Governmen t. 



That it will, therefore, be reasonable for the General Governmen t to provide
in this behalf by law for those cases of manufactur e 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 manufactor y, to
enter in the records of the court of the district wherein his manufactor y 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. 



158 Jefferson's Works 



Opinion relative to the demolition of Mr. Carroll's house by Major L'Enfant, in
laying out the Federal city. 



December 11, 1791. Observatio ns 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
distributio n 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. Consequent ly, there is as yet no such thing as a street, 



Official Papers 159 



except adjacent to the lots actually sold or divided; the erection of a house
in any part of the ground cannot as yet be a nuisance in law. Mr. Carroll is
tenant in common of the soil with the public, and the erection of a house by a
tenant in common on the common property, is no nuisance. Mr. Carroll has acted
imprudently, intemperat ely, foolishly; but he has not acted illegally. There
must be an establishme nt of the streets, before his house can become a
nuisance in the eye of the law. Therefore, till that establishme nt, neither
Major L'Enfant, nor the commission ers, would have had a right to demolish his
house, without his consent. 



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 imprisonme nt, 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 imprisonme nt. In the present case, if Carroll was
to bring a civil action, the jury would probably punish his folly by small
damages, 



160 Jefferson's Works 



but if he were to prosecute criminally, the judge would as probably vindicate
the insult on the laws, and the breach of the peace, by heavy fines and
imprisonme nt. So that if Major L'Enfant is right in saying he had as much
authority to pull down a house as to cut down a tree, still he would feel a
difference in the punishment of the law. 



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
commission ers, 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 commission ers, 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 obstruction s, where they
insuperabl y 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 



Official Papers 161 



resentment against Mr. Carroll, and most probably not because it was necessary;
and the style in which he writes the justification of his act, shows that a
continuatio n of the same resentment renders him still unable to acquiesce
under the authority from which he has been reproved. 



He desires a line of demarcatio n between his office, and that of the
commission ers. 



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
commission ers, and to approve or disapprove certain proceeding s of theirs.
They have the whole executive power, and stand between the President and the
subordinat e agents. In this view, they may employ or dismiss, order and
counterman d, take on themselves such parts of the execution as they please,
and assign other parts to subordinat e agents. Consequent ly, under the act of
Congress, their will is the line of demarcatio n between subordinat e 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 particularl y to the laying out the town: so that as to this, the
President is certainly authorized to draw 



#VOL. III-II# 



162 Jefferson's Works 



the line of demarcation between L'Enfant and the commission ers. But I believe
there is no necessity for it, as far as I have been able to judge, from
conversatio ns and consultatio ns with the commission ers. I think they are
disposed to follow implicitly the will of the President, whenever they can find
it out; but L'Enfant's letters do not breathe the same moderation or acquiescen
ce; and I think it would be much safer to say to him, "the orders of the
commission ers are your line of demarcation," than by attempting to define his
powers, to give him a line where he may meet with the commission ers foot to
foot, and chicane and raise opposition to their orders whenever he thinks they
pass his line. I confess, that on a view of L'Enfant's proceeding s and letters
latterly, I am thoroughly persuaded that, to render him useful, his temper must
be subdued; and that the only means of preventing his giving constant trouble
to the President, is to submit him to the unlimited control of the commission
ers; we know the discretion and forbearanc e with which they will exercise it. 



Opinion relative to certain lands on Lake Erie, sold by the United States to
Pennsylvan ia. 



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



Official Papers 163 



therein mentioned, on the subject of certain lands on Lake Erie, having had the
same under considerati on, thereupon Reports:-



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 Pennsylvan ia and Lake Erie, and authorized a sale
thereof. 



That a sale was accordingl y made to the commonwea lth of Pennsylvan ia. 



That Congress, by their resolution of September 4th, 1788, relinquishe d to the
said commonwea lth all their right to the governmen t and jurisdictio n of the
said tract of land; but the right of soil was not transferre d 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 comptroller s of the United States and
of the said commonwea lth, and that the Governor of Pennsylvan ia 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 commonwea lth. That there is no
person at present authorized, by law, to convey to the said commonwea lth 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. 

164 Jefferson's Works 



Report relative to negotiation s with Spain to secure the free navigation of
the Mississippi, and a port on the same. 



December 22, 1791  The Secretary of State reports to the President of the
United States, that one of the commission ers of Spain, in the name of both,
has lately communicat ed to him verbally, by order of his court, that his
Catholic Majesty, apprized of our solicitude to have some arrangeme nt 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 plenipotent
iary made out for the purpose. 



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



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



Official Papers 165 



and foreign nations, will insufficient ly furnish the ordinary and regular
demands on it, and is consequent ly inadequate to the mission of an additional
commission er express from hence. 



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, commission ers plenipotent iary 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 accommodat ions with respect to a port, and other circumstan ces, 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 appointmen t of Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Short, as commission
ers to 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 arrangeme nt explained: 



166 Jefferson's Works 

The Secretary of State reports to the President of the United States the
following observatio ns on the subjects of negotiation between the United
States of America and the court of Spain, to be communicat ed by way of
instruction to the commission ers of the United States, appointed as before
mentioned, to manage that negotiation . 



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 possession s 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 establishme nt, separate and distinct societies, dependent on no
other society of men whatever. They continued at the head of their respective
governmen ts 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 governmen t their several boundaries were fixed; and particularl y the
southern boundary of Georgia, the only one now in question, was established at
the 31st degree of latitude from the Appalachic ola westwardly ; and 



Official Papers 167 



the western boundary, originally the Pacific Ocean, was, by the treaty of
Paris, reduced to the middle of the Mississippi. The part which our chief
magistrate took in a war, waged against us by the nation among whom he resided,
obliged us to discontinue him, and to name one within every State. In the
course of this war we were joined by France as an ally, and by Spain and
Holland as associates; having a common enemy, each sought that common enemy
wherever they could find him. France, on our invitation, landed a large army
within our territories, continued it with us two years, and aided us in
recovering sundry places from the possession of the enemy. But she did not
pretend to keep possession of the places rescued. Spain entered into the remote
western part of our territory, dislodged the common enemy from several of the
posts they held therein, to the annoyance of Spain; and perhaps thought it
necessary to remain in some of them, as the only means of preventing their
return. We, in like manner, dislodged them from several posts in the same
western territory, to wit: Vincennes, Cahokia, Kaskaskia, &c., rescued the
inhabitants , and retained constantly afterwards both them and the territory
under our possession and governmen t. At the conclusion of the war, Great
Britain, on the 30th of November, 1782, by treaty acknowledg ed our independen
ce, and our boundary, to wit: the Mississippi to the west, and the completion
of the 31st degree, &c., to the south. In her treaty with 



168 Jefferson's Works 



Spain, concluded seven weeks afterwards, to wit: January 20th, 1783, she ceded
to her the two Floridas, which had been defined in the proclamatio n of 1763,
and Minorca; and by the eighth article of the treaty, Spain agreed to restore,
without compensati on, all the territories conquered by her, and not included
in the treaty, either under the head of cessions or restitution s, that is to
say, all except Minorca and the Floridas. According to this stipulation, Spain
was expressly bound to have delivered up the possession s she had taken within
the limits of Georgia, to Great Britain, if they were conquests on Great
Britain, who was to deliver them over to the United States; or rather, she
should have delivered them to the United States themselves, as standing quoad
hoc in the place of Great Britain. And she was bound by natural rights to
deliver them to the same United States on a much stronger ground, as the real
and only proprietors of those places which she had taken possession of in a
moment of danger, without having had any cause of war with the United States,
to whom they belonged, and without having declared any; but, on the contrary,
conducting herself in other respects as a friend and associate. Vattel, 1. 3,
122. 



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 renunciatio n or abandonme nt by the former proprietor. Had Great Britain
been that 



Official Papers 169 



former proprietor, she was so far from confirming to Spain the right to the
territory of Georgia, invaded by Spain, that she expressly relinquishe d to the
United States any right that might remain in her; and afterwards completed that
relinquish ment, by procuring and consolidati ng with it the agreement of Spain
herself to restore such territory without compensati on. It is still more
palpable, that a war existing between two nations, as Spain and Great Britain,
could give to neither the right to seize and appropriat e the territory of a
third, which is even neutral, much less which is an associate in the war, as
the United States were with Spain. See, on this Subject, Grotius, 1. 3, C. 6, §
26. Puffendorf, 1. 8, c. 17, § 23. Vattel, 1. 3, § 197, 198. 



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
commission ers 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 



170 Jefferson's Works 



argument on the subject, they will of course do it hypothetic ally; and in that
way may justly say, on the part of the United States; suppose that the United
States, exhausted by a bloody and expensive war with Great Britain, might have
been willing to have purchased peace by relinquishi ng, under a particular
contingenc y, a small part of their territory, it does not follow that the same
United States, recruited and better organized, must relinquish the same
territory to Spain without striking a blow. The United States, too, have
irrevocably put it out of their power to do it, by a new constitutio n, which
guarantees every State against the invasion of its territory. A disastrous war,
indeed, might, by necessity, supersede this stipulation, (as necessity is above
all law,) and oblige them to abandon a part of a State; but nothing short of
this can justify or obtain such an abandonme nt. 



The southern limits of Georgia depend chiefly on, 



1. The charter of Carolina to the lords proprietors , in 1663, extending
southwardl y 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 4th¹ Memoires de l'Amerique, 554. 



2. On the proclamatio n of the British King, in 1763, establishin g the
boundary between Georgia 



#¹ Mr. Short is desired to purchase this book at Amsterdam, or Paris, as he may
not find it at Madrid, and when it shall have answered the purposes of this
mission, let it be sent here for the use of the Secretary of State's office.# 



Official Papers 171 

and the two Floridas to begin on the Mississippi, in thirty-one degrees of
latitude north of the equator, and running eastwardly to the Appalachic ola;
thence, along the said river to the mouth of the Flint; thence, in a direct
line, to the source of St. Mary's river, and down the same to the ocean. This
proclamatio n will be found in Postlethwa yte voce "British America." 



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 intermediat e transaction , to wit: a convention concluded at the
Pardo, in 1739, whereby it was agreed that Ministers Plenipotent iary 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 proceeding s of the Plenipotent iaries are unknown here. Qu.
If it was on that occasion that the southern boundary of Carolina was
transferre d from latitude of Matheo or St. John's river further north to the
St. Mary's? Or was it the proclamatio n of 1763, which first removed this
boundary? [If the commission ers can procure in Spain a copy of whatever was
agreed on in consequenc e of the convention of the Pardo, it is a desirable
State paper here.) 



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



172 Jefferson's Works 



she would accede to them. This took place in conversatio ns and correspond ence
thereon between Mr. Jay, Minister Plenipotent iary for the United States at the
court at Madrid, the Marquis de La Fayette, and the Count de Florida Blanca.
Monsieur de La Fayette, in his letter of February 19, 1783, to the Count de
Florida Blanca, states the result of their conversatio ns on limits in these
words: "With respect to limits, his Catholic Majesty has adopted those that are
determined by the preliminari es of the 30th of November, between the United
States and the court of London." The Count de Florida Blanca, in his answer of
February 22d, to M. de La Fayette, says, "although it is his Majesty's
intention to abide for the present by the limits established by the treaty of
the 30th of November, 1782, between the English and the Americans, the King
intends to inform himself particularl y whether it can be in any ways
inconvenie nt or prejudicial to settle that affair amicably with the United
States;" and M. de La Fayette, in his letter of the same day to Mr. Jay,
wherein he had inserted the preceding, says, "on receiving the answer of the
Count de Florida Blanca, (to wit: his answer, before mentioned, to M. de La
Fayette,) I desired an explanation respecting the addition that relates to the
limits. I was answered, that it was a fixed principle to abide by the limits
established by the treaty between the English and the Americans; that his
remark related only to mere unimportan t details, which he wished to receive
from the Spanish 



Official Papers 173 



commandan ts, which would be amicably regulated, and would by no means oppose
the general principle. I asked him, before the Ambassado r of France, [M. de
Montmorin, ] whether he would give me his word of honor for it; he assured me
he would, and that I might engage it to the United States." See the report sent
herewith. 



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 



174 Jefferson's Works 



river, as well as the passage both in and out of its mouth; and that the
vessels should not be stopped, visited, or subjected to the payment of any duty
whatsoever . These are the words of the treaty, article VII. Florida was at the
same time ceded by Spain, and its extent westwardly was fixed to the lakes
Pontchartr ain and Maurepas, and the river Mississippi; and Spain received soon
after from France a cession of the island of New Orleans, and all the country
she held westward of the Mississippi, subject of course to our right of
navigating between that country and the island previously granted to us by
France. This right was not parcelled out to us in severalty, that is to say, to
each the exclusive navigation of so much of the river as was adjacent to our
several shores­in which way it would have been useless to all­but it was placed
on that footing on which alone it could be worth anything, to wit: as a right
to all to navigate the whole length of the river in common. The import of the
terms and the reason of the thing prove it was a right of common in the whole,
and not a several right to each of a particular part. To which may be added the
evidence of the stipulation itself, that we should navigate between New Orleans
and the western bank, which, being adjacent to none of our States, could be
held lay us only as a right of common. Such was the nature of our right to
navigate the Mississippi, as far as established by the Treaty of Paris. 



2. In the course of the Revolutiona ry war, in 



Official Papers 175 



which the thirteen colonies, Spain, and France, were opposed to Great Britain,
Spain took possession of several posts held by the British in Florida. It is
unnecessar y to inquire whether the possession of half a dozen posts scattered
through a country of seven or eight hundred miles extent, could be considered
as the possession and conquest of that country. If it w as, it gave still but
an inchoate right, as was before explained, which could not be perfected but by
the relinquish ment of the former possession at the close of the war; but
certainly it could not be considered as a conquest of the river, even against
Great Britain, since the possession of the shores, to wit, of the island of New
Orleans on the one side, and Louisiana on the other, having undergone no
change, the right in the water would remain the same, if considered only in its
relation to them; and if considered as a distinct right, independen t of the
shores, then no naval victories obtained by Spain over Great Britain, in the
course of the war, gave her the color of conquest over any water which the
British fleet could enter. Still less can she be considered as having conquered
the river, as against the United States, with whom she was not at war. We had a
common right of navigation in the part of the river between Florida, the island
of New Orleans, and the western bank, and nothing which passed between Spain
and Great Britain, either during the war, or at its conclusion, could lessen
that right. Accordingl y, at the treaty of 



176 Jefferson's Works 



November, 1782, Great Britain confirmed the rights of the United States to the
navigation of the river, from its source to its mouth, and in January, 1783,
completed the right of Spain to the territory of Florida, by an absolute
relinquish ment of all her rights in it. This relinquish ment could not include
the navigation held by the United States in their own right, because this right
existed in themselves only, and was not in Great Britain. If it added anything
to the rights of Spain respecting the river between the eastern and western
banks, it could only be that portion of right which Great Britain had retained
to her self in the treaty with the United States, held seven weeks before, to
wit, a right of using it in common with the United States. 



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 transferre d 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 



Official Papers 177 



man, savage or civilized, unbiased by habit, who does not feel and attest this
truth? Accordingl y, in all tracts of country united under the same political
society, we find this natural right universally acknowledg ed and protected by
laying the navigable rivers open to all their inhabitants . When their rivers
enter the limits of another society, if the right of the upper inhabitants to
descend the stream is in any case obstructed, it is an act of force by a
stronger society against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind. The
late case of Antwerp and the Scheldt was a striking proof of a general union of
sentiment on this point; as it is believed that Amsterdam had scarcely an
advocate out of Holland, and even there its pretension s were advocated on the
ground of treaties, and not of natural right. (The commission ers would do well
to examine thoroughly what was written on this occasion.) The commissioners
will be able perhaps to find, either in the practice or the pretension s of
Spain, as to the Dauro, Tagus, and Guadiana, some acknowledg ments of this
principle on the part of that nation. This sentiment of right in favor of the
upper inhabitants must become stronger in the proportion which their extent of
country bears to the lower. The United States hold 600,000 square miles of
habitable territory on the Mississippi and its branches, and this river and its
branches afford many thousands of miles of navigable waters penetratin g this
territory in all its parts. The inhabitable grounds of 



#VOL. III-12# 



178 Jefferson's Works 



Spain below our boundary and bordering on the river, which alone can pretend
any fear of being incommode d by our use of the river, are not the thousandth
part of that extent. This vast portion of the territory of the United States
has no other outlet for its production s, and these production s are of the
bulkiest kind. And in truth, their passage down the river may not only be
innocent, as to the Spanish subjects on the river, but cannot fail to enrich
them far beyond their present condition. The real interests then of all the
inhabitants , upper and lower, concur in fact with their rights. 



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 modificatio n
of its exercise depends in a considerabl e degree on the convenienc y of the
nation through which they are to pass. But it is still a right as real as any
other right, however well-define d; 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 impracticab le 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 



Official Papers 179 



below, and founded in the same natural relations with the soil and water. And
the line at which their rights meet is to be advanced or withdrawn, so as to
equalize the inconvenie nces resulting to each party from the exercise of the
right by the other. This estimate is to be fairly made with a mutual
disposition to make equal sacrifices, and the numbers on each side are to have
their due weight in the estimate. Spain holds so very small a tract of
habitable land on either side below our boundary, that it may in fact be
considered as a strait of the sea; for though it is eighty leagues from our
boundary to the mouth of the river, yet it is only here and there in spots and
slips that the land rises above the level of the water in times of inundation.
There are, then, and ever must be, so few inhabitants on her part of the river,
that the freest use of its navigation may be admitted to us without their
annoyance. For authorities on this subject, see Grot. 1. 2. c. 2 § 11, 12, 13,
C. 3. § 7, 8, 12. Puffendorf, 1. 3. c. 3. § 3, 4, 5, 6. Wolff's Inst. § 310,
311, 312. Vattel, 1. 1. § 292. 1. 2. § 123 to 139.



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 



180 Jefferson's Works 



the other of the general bed of the river. Within the elbows thus made by the
channel, there is generally an eddy setting upwards, and it is by taking
advantage of these eddies, and constantly crossing from one to another of them,
that boats are enabled to ascend the river. Without this right the whole river
would be impracticab le both to the Americans and Spaniards. 



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,¹ (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 



#¹ Rivers belong to the public, that is to say to the Roman people.# 



Official Papers 181 



treaty of Paris, when a right was ceded to British subjects to navigate the
whole river, and expressly that part between the island of New Orleans and the
western bank, without stipulating a word about the use of the shores, though
both of them belonged then to France, and were to belong immediately to Spain.
Had not the use of the shores been considered as incident to that of the water,
it would have been expressly stipulated; since its necessity was too obvious to
have escaped either party. Accordingl y, all British subjects used the shores
habitually for the purposes necessary to the navigation of the river; and when
a Spanish governor undertook at one time to forbid this, and even cut loose the
vessels fastening to their shores, a British frigate went immediately , moored
itself to the shore opposite to the town of New Orleans, and set out guards
with orders to fire on such as might attempt to disturb her moorings. The
governor acquiesced, the right was constantly exercised afterwards, and no
interruptio n ever offered. 



This incidental right extends even beyond the shores, when circumstan ces
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. 



182 Jefferson's Works 



¹ "Riparum quoque usus publicus est, ut volunt jura gentium, sicut et ipsvts
fluminis usus publicus est. Itaque et navigium ad ripes appellere, et funes de
arboribus ibi natis religare, et navis onera in his locis reponere, liberum
quique est sicuti nec per flumen ipsum navigare quisquam prohibetur. " And
again, § 5, ² "littorum quoque usus publicus, sive juri gentium est, ut et
ipsius maris et ob id data est facultas volentibus, casas ibi sibi componere,
in quas se recipere possint," &c. Again, § 1. ² "Nemo igitur ad littora maris
accedere prohibitur; veluti deambulare aut navem appellere, sic tamen ut a
villis, id est domiciliis monumentis que ibi positis, et ab edificiis
abstineat, nec iis damnum inferat." 



Among incidental rights are those of having pilots, buoys, beacons, landmarks,
light-house s, &c., to guide the navigators. The establishme nt 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, 

¹ "The use of the banks belong also to the public by the laws of nations, as
the use of the river itself does. Therefore, every one is free to moor his
vessel to the bank, to fasten his cables to the trees growing on it, to deposit
the cargo of his vessel in those places in like manner as every one is free to
navigate the river itself." 



² "The use of the shores also belongs to the public, or is under the law of
nations, as is that of the sea itself. Therefore it is, that those who choose,
have a right to build huts there, into which they may betake themselves. " 



² "Nobody, therefore, is prohibited from landing on the sea shore, walking
there, or mooring their vessel there, so neverthele ss that they keep out of
the villas, that is, the habitations , monuments, and public buildings, erected
there, and do them no injury." 



Official Papers 183 



and refuse those of the other, both as to use and expense. 



Very peculiar circumstan ces attending the river Mississippi, require that the
incidental right of accommodat ion 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 modificatio
ns in proportion a; it interferes with their territorial right. But the
inconvenie nces 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 concurrenc e 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 circumstan ces
proclaim that it should be, and on the considerati ons which make it palpable
that a convenient spot placed under our exclusive occupation, and exempted from
the jurisdictio n and police of their governmen t, is far more likely to
preserve peace than a mere free port, where eternal 



184 Jefferson's Works 



altercations would keep us in eternal ill humor with each other. The policy of
this measure, and indeed of a much larger concession, having been formerly
sketched in a paper of July 12th, 1790, sent to the commission ers severally,
they are now referred to that. 



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 commission ers 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 inundation s. This spot then
is what we would fix on, if obliged now to decide, with from one to as many
square miles of the circumjace nt lands as can be obtained, and comprehen ding
expressly the shores above and below the site of the fort as far as possible. 



Official Papers 185 



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 convenienc e of that Governmen t is entitled to so much respect and
attention on our part, that the arrangeme nt must be left to the managemen t of
the commission ers, who will doubtless use their best efforts to obtain all
they can for us. 



The worst footing on which the determinati on of the ground could be placed,
would be a reference to joint commission ers; because their disagreeme nt, 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 disagreeme nt, 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 



186 Jefferson's Works 



circumstan ces. America did not then exist as a nation; and the circumstan ces
of her position and commerce, are so totally dissimilar to everything then
known, that the treaties of that day were not adapted to any such being. They
would better fit even China than America; because, as a manufactur ing nation,
China resembles Europe more. When we solicited France to admit our whale oils
into her ports, though she had excluded all foreign whale oils, her minister
made the objection now under considerati on, and the foregoing answer was
given. It was found to be solid; and the whale oils of the United States are in
consequenc e admitted, though those of Portugal and the Hanse towns, and of all
other nations, are excluded. Again, when France and England were negotiating
their late treaty of commerce, the great dissimilitud e of our commerce (which
furnishes raw materials to employ the industry of others, in exchange for
articles whereon industry has been exhausted) from the commerce of the European
nations (which furnishes things ready wrought only) was suggested to the
attention of both negotiators , and that they should keep their nations free to
make particular arrangeme nts with ours, by communicat ing to each other only
the rights of the most favored European nation. Each was separately sensible of
the importance of the distinction; and as soon as it was proposed by the one,
it was acceded to by the other, and the word European was inserted in their
treaty. It may 



Official Papers 187 



fairly be considered then as the rational and received interpretat ion of the
diplomatic term, "gentis amicissimæ, "¹ that it has not in view a nation
unknown in many cases at the time of using the term, and so dissimilar in all
cases as to furnish no ground of just reclamation to any nation. 



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 apprehend s 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 observatio ns furnish sufficient matter for refutation. 



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



#¹"The most favored nation."# 



188 Jefferson's Works 



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 jurisdictio n in any part
northward or eastward of these boundaries . 



2. That our right be acknowledg ed 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 restriction s as to produce the least
possible inconvenie nce. But it should be altogether avoided, if possible, as
the parent of perpetual broils. 



4. That such convenienc es be allowed us ashore, as may render our right of
navigation practicable and under such regulations as may bona fide respect the
preservatio n 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 modificatio ns of it are left altogether to the
discretion and managemen t of the commission ers. 



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



Official Papers 189 



phrase should be admitted in the treaty which could express or imply that we
take the navigation of the Mississippi as a gram from Spain. But, however
disagreeabl e it would be to subscribe to such a sentiment, yet, where the
conclusion of a treaty to hang on that single objection, it would be expedient
to waive it, and to meet, at a future day, the consequenc es of any resumption
they may pretend to make, rather than at present, those of a separation without
coming to any agreement. 



We know not whether Spain has it in idea to ask a compensati on for the
ascertainm ent of our right. 



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



2. In the second place, we have a claim on Spain for indemnifica tion for nine
years' exclusion from that navigation, and a reimbursem ent of the heavy duties
(not less for the most part than 15 per cent on extravagan t valuations) levied
on the commoditie s she has permitted to pass to New Orleans. The relinquish
ment of this, will be no unworthy equivalent for any accommodat ions 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
considerati on of such accommodat ions. We have nothing else to give in
exchange. For as to territory, we have neither the right nor the disposition to
alienate 

190 Jefferson's Works 



an inch of what belongs to any member of our Union. Such a proposition ,
therefore, is totally inadmissibl e, and not to be treated of for a moment. 



3. On the former conference s on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose
to blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingl y, specific
proposition s thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object, then, was to
obtain our renunciatio n of the navigation, and to hold out commercial
arrangeme nts, perhaps as a lure to us; perhaps, however, she might then, and
may now, really set a value on commercial arrangeme nts with us, and may
receive them as a considerati on for accommodat ing us in the navigation; or,
may wish for them, to have the appearance of receiving a considerati on.
Commercial arrangeme nts, 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 possession s in America, we are ready to
exchange the rights of native citizens, provided they be extended through the
whole possession s of both parties, but the proposition s of Spain, made on the
former occasion, (a copy of which accompanie s this,) were, that we should give
their merchants, vessels, and production s, 



Official Papers 191 



the privilege of native merchants, vessels, and production s, through the whole
of our possession s, and they give the same to ours only in Spain and the
Canaries. This is inadmissibl e, because unequal; and, as we believe that Spain
is not ripe for an equal exchange on this basis, we avoid proposing it. 



2. Though treaties, which merely exchange the rights of the most favored
nations, are not without all inconvenie nce, yet they have their convenienc es
also. It is an important one, that they leave each party free to make what
internal regulations they please, and to give what preference s they find
expedient to native merchants, vessels, and production s. 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 embarrass ment
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 reciprocati on 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 



192 Jefferson's Works 



of fitting out privateers, or of capturing merchant vessels. The French treaty,
therefore, is proposed as the model. In this, however, the following changes
are to be made. 



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 inapplicabl e to Spain. 



Article 8 to be omitted, as unnecessar y with Morocco, and inefficaciou s, 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 inapplicabl e. 



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 



Official Papers 193 



from the enemies of that other, must be qualified as it is in the r 9th article
of the Prussian treaty; as the stipulation in the latter part of the article,
"that no shelter or refuge shall be given in the ports of the one to such as
shall have made prize on the subjects of the other of the parties," would
forbid us in case of a war between France and Spain, to give shelter in our
ports to prizes made by the latter on the former, while the first part of the
article would oblige us to shelter those made by the former on the latter­a
very dangerous covenant, and which ought never to be repeated in any other
instance. 



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 possession s in America, and particularl y 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 recommend ed to the best endeavors of
the commission ers 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-establis h 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, 



#VOL. III-13# 



194 Jefferson's Works 



by the Revolution treaty, are restrained to the southeaste rn parts of Yucatan.




Article 31. The act of ratification , on our part, may require a twelvemont h
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
representa tive 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 arrangeme nt, 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 commission ers 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 Governmen t, as yet, so far developed
themselves, as that we can know to what degree we may 



Official Papers 195 



or must have recourse to commerce for the purposes of revenue. No common
considerati on, therefore, ought to induce us, as yet, to arrangeme nts of this
kind. Perhaps nothing should do it with any nation, short of the privileges of
natives in all their possession s, foreign and domestic. 



It were to be wished, indeed, that some positively favorable stipulation s
respecting our grain, flour, and fish, could be obtained, even on our giving
reciprocal advantages to some other commoditie s 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 convenienc e, Spain may insist on doing the same for other
articles for her convenienc e, and thus our commission ers 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 considerabl e 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



196 Jefferson's Works 



them. On this considerati on, and on the motive of cultivating our friendship,
perhaps the commission ers may induce them to restore this commodity to the
footing on which it was, on opening the conference s with Mr. Gardoqui, on the
26th day of July, 1785. If Spain says, "do the same by your tonnage on our
vessels," the answer may be, that our foreign tonnage affects Spain very
little, and other nations very much; whereas the duty on flour in Spain affects
us very much, and other nations very little. Consequent ly, there would be no
equality in reciprocal relinquish ment, as there had been none in the
reciprocal innovation; and Spain, by insisting on this, would, in fact, only be
aiding the interests of her rival nations, to whom we should be forced to
extend the same indulgence. At the time of opening the conference s, too, we
had, as yet, not erected any system; our governmen t itself being not yet
erected. Innovation then was unavoidabl e on our part, if it be innovation to
establish a system. We did it on fair and general ground; on ground favorable
to Spain. But they had a system, and, therefore, innovation was avoidable on
their part. 



It is known to the commission ers that we found it expedient to ask the
interpositio n of France, lately, to bring on this settlement of our boundary,
and the navigation of the Mississippi. How far that interpositio n has
contribute d to produce it, is uncertain. But we have reason to believe that
her further interferenc e would not produce an agreeable effect 



Official Papers 197 



on Spain. The commission ers, therefore, are to avoid all further communicat
ions on the subject with the ministers of France, giving them such explanation
s as may preserve their good disposition s. But if, ultimately, they shall find
themselves unable to bring Spain to agreement on the subject of the navigation
and boundary, the interpositio n of France, as a mutual friend, and the
guarantee of our limits, is then to be asked, in whatever light Spain may
choose to consider it. 



Should the negotiation s 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 discontinue d without coming to any agreement,
the Governmen t of the United States cannot be responsible for the longer
forbearanc e of their western inhabitants . At the same time the abandonme nt
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 convenienc es, on the shores, which may
facilitate and protect the latter effectually and permanentl y. 



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 



198 Jefferson's Works 



herself of other parts of our territory. But she has lately taken and fortified
a new post on the Walnut hills, above the mouth of the Yazoo river, and far
above the 31st degree. This garrison ought to have been instantly dislodged;
but for our wish to be in friendship with Spain, and our confidence in her
assurances "to bide by the limits established in our treaty with England,"
complaints of this unfriendly and uncandid procedure may be brought forward or
not, as the commission ers shall see expedient. 



Report on the case of Charles Russell and others, claiming certain lands. 



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
commonwea lth, 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 commonwea lth, stating that a considerabl e 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 substitutin g in lieu
thereof the tract of country between the said boundary and the rivers
Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and 



Official Papers 199 



subjecting the same to the claims of their officers and soldiers. That the said
Charles Russell had in. consequenc e thereof, directed warrants for two
thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds acres of land to be located
within the said tract of country, but that the same belonging to the Chickasaws
, he is unable to obtain a right thereto, and that there are other officers and
soldiers of the said commonwea lth under like circumstan ces: 



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 commonwea lth, becomes proper to be referred to the
legislature of the United States for their considerati on. 



Report relative to negotiation s at Madrid. 



March 7, 1792. The Secretary of State having understood, from communicat ions
with the commission ers 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 



200 Jefferson's Works 



that the conference s would extend to all the matters which were under
negotiation on the former occasion with Mr. Gardoqui, and particularl y to some
arrangeme nts of commerce, is of opinion, that, to renew the conference s on
this subject also, since they desire it, will be but friendly and respectful,
and can lead to nothing without our own consent; and that, to refuse it, might
obstruct the settlement of the questions of navigation and boundary; and,
therefore, reports to the President of the United States, the following
observatio ns and instruction s to the commission ers of the United States,
appointed to negotiate with the court of Spain a treaty or convention relative
to the navigation of the Mississippi; which observatio ns and instruction s, he
is of opinion, should be laid before the Senate of the United States, and their
decision be desired, whether they will advise and consent that a treaty be
entered into by the commission ers of the United States with Spain conformabl e
thereto. 



After stating to our commission ers 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 conference s on the navigation of the Mississippi, Spain chose to
blend with it the subject of commerce; and, accordingl y, specific proposition
s thereon passed between the negotiators . Her object then was to obtain our
renunciatio n of 



Official Papers 201 

the navigation, and to hold out commercial arrangeme nts, perhaps as a lure to
us. Perhaps, however, she might then, and may now, really set a value on
commercial arrangeme nts with us, and may receive them as a considerati on for
accommodat ing us in the navigation, or may wish for them to have the
appearance of receiving a considerati on. Commercial arrangeme nts, 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. 



Opinion on the Bill apportionin g Representa tion. 



April 4, 1792. The Constitutio n has declared that representa tives and direct
taxes shall be apportione d among the several States according to their
respective numbers. That the number of representa tives shall not exceed one
for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one representa tive, and
until such enumeratio n shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be
entitled to choose 3, Massachuse tts 2. 



The bill for apportionin g representa tives among the several States, without
explaining any principle at all, which may show its conformity with the
constitutio n, to guide future apportionm ents, says, that New Hampshire shall
have 3 members, Massachuse tts 16, &c. We are, therefore, to find by experiment




202 Jefferson's Works 



what has been the principle of the bill; to do which, it is proper to state the
federal or representa ble numbers of each State, and the numbers allotted to
them by the bill. They are as follows:                                         
            Members.  

Vermont .................. .....                 85,532                3  

New Hampshire .. . . . . .                  141,823                5  

Massachuse tts . . . . . . . .                  475,327                16  

Rhode Island. . . . . . . . .                  68,444                2  

Connecticu t . . . . . . . . .                   285.941                8  

New York .. . . . . . . . . .                  352,915                11  

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . .                  179,556                6  

Pennsylvan ia. ...............                 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 representa tion, whether tried as between great and small
States, or as between north and south, yields, in the present instance, a
tolerably just result; and, consequent ly, could not be objected to on that
ground, if it were obtained by the process prescribed in the Constitutio n; but
if obtained by any process out of that, it becomes arbitrary and inadmissibl e.




The 1st member of the clause of the Constitutio n above cited is express, that
representa tives shall be apportione d among the several States according to
their respective numbers. That is to say, they shall 



Official Papers 203 



be apportione d by some common ratio­for proportion, and ratio, are equivalent
words; and, in the definition of proportion among numbers, that they have a
ratio common to all, or in other words, a common divisor. Now, trial will show
that there is no common ratio, or divisor, which, applied to the numbers of
each State, will give to them the number of representa tives allotted in this
bill. For trying the several ratios of 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, the allotments would
be as follows:



                                        29                30         31       
32        33         The Bill.           Vermont .. . .. . . . . . . . .       
2                2        2        2         2         3

         New Hampshire .. . . . . .        4                 4        4       
4        4        5                   Massachuse tts ........                16
                15        15        14         14          16

         Rhode Island .. . . . . . . .        2                2         2     
  2        2        2                   Connecticu t ..........               
8                7        7         7        7        8 

         New York ............                12                 11        11  
     11         10        11 

         New Jersey .. . . . . . . . . .        6                5        5    
   5         5        6

           Pennsylvan ia .........                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 ..
. . . . . . . . . .22222 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 constitutio nal precept, because, by it, representa
tives are not apportione d 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 will apportion them 



204 Jefferson's Works 



among the States according to numbers exactly, without leaving any remainder,
yet, for representa tives, there can be no such common ratio, or divisor,
which, applied to the several numbers, will divide them exactly, without a
remainder or fraction. I answer, then, that taxes must be divided exactly, and
representa tives as nearly as the nearest ratio will admit; and the fractions
must be neglected, because the Constitutio n calls absolutely that there be an
apportionm ent or common ratio, and if any fractions result from the operation,
it has left them unprovided for. In fact it could not but foresee that such
fractions would result, and it meant to submit to them. It knew they would be
in favor of one part of the Union at one time, and of another at another, so
as, in the end, to balance occasional irregulariti es. But instead of such a
single common ratio, or uniform divisor, as prescribed by the Constitutio n,
the bill has applied two ratios, at least, to the different States, to wit,
that of 30,026 to the seven following: Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvan ia,
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia; and that of 27,770 to the eight
others, namely: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachuse tts, Connecticu t, New
Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as follows: 



         Rhode Island .. . . .          68,444      divided      by     30,026 
 gives        2  

        New York .. . . . . .          352,915             "        "        " 
      "         11  

         Pennsylvan ia .........         432,880        "        "        "    
   "        14 

          Maryland ............         278,513        "        "        "     
  "         9                          Virginia..... .........         630,558 
      "        "        "        "         21

         Kentucky .. ..........         58,705        "        "        "      
 "          2 

         Georgia ..............         70,843        "        "        "      
 "          2



Official Papers 205 



         Vermont .. . . . . . . . . . . .         85,532       divided     by  
 27,770   gives        3 

         New Hampshire. . . . . . .         141,823        "        "        " 
      "         5                   Massachuse tts ........                
475,327        "        "        "        "         16                  
Connecticu t ..........                 235,941        "        "        "     
  "         8  

        New Jersey .. . . . . . . . . .         179,556        "        "      
 "        "         6                   Delaware.............                
55,538        "        "        "        "        2  

         North Carolina . . . ....         353,521        "        "        "  
     "         12  

         South Carolina .. . . . . . .         206,236        "        "       
"        " 



And if two ratios be applied, then fifteen may, and the distributio n become
arbitrary, instead of being apportione d to numbers. Another member of the
clause of the Constitutio n which has been cited, says "the number of
representa tives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each State shall
have at least one representa tive." This last phrase proves that it had no
contemplati on that all fractions, or numbers below the common ratio were to be
unrepresen ted; and it provides especially that in the case of a State whose
whole number shall be below the common ratio, one representa tive shall be
given to it. This is the single instance where it allows representa tion to any
smaller number than the common ratio, and by providing especially for it in
this, shows it was understood that, without special provision, the smaller
number would in this case, be involved in the general principle. The first
phrase of the above citations, that "the number of representa tives shall not
exceed one for every 30,000," is violated by this bill which has given to eight
States a number exceeding one for every 30,000, to wit, one for every 27,770. 



In answer to this, it is said that this phrase may mean either the 30,000 in
each State, or the 30,000 



206 Jefferson's Works 



in the whole Union, and that in the latter case it serves only to find the
amount of the whole representa tion; which, in the present state of population,
is 120 members. Suppose the phrase might bear both meanings, which will common
sense apply to it? Which did the universal understand ing of our country apply
to it? Which did the Senate and Representa tives apply to it during the
pendency of the first bill, and even till an advanced stage of this second
bill, when an ingenious gentleman found out the doctrine of fractions, a
doctrine so difficult and in obvious, as to be rejected at first sight by the
very persons who afterwards became its most zealous advocates? 



The phrase stands in the midst of a number of others, every one of which
relates to States in their separate capacity. Will not plain common sense then,
understand it, like the rest of its context, to relate to States in their
separate capacities? 



But if the phrase of one for 30,000 is only meant to give the aggregate of
representa tives, and not at all to influence their apportionm ent among the
States, then the 120 being once found, in order to apportion them, we must
recur to the former rule which does it according to the numbers of the
respective States; and we must take the nearest common divisor, as the ratio of
distributio n, that is to say, that divisor which, applied to every State,
gives to them such numbers as, added together, come nearest to 120. This
nearest common ratio will be found to be 28,658, and will distribute 119 of the
120 members, leaving only 



Official Papers 207 



a single residuary one. It will be found too to place 96,648 fractional numbers
in the eight northernmo st States, and 106, 582 in the seven southernmo st. The
following table shows it:                                                      
   Ratio, 28,658         Fraction.  

         Vermont ...........                 85,832                2        
27,816  

        New Hampshire. . . . .         141,823                4         26,391 


         Massachusetts ......                 475,327                16        
13,599  

         Rhode Island . .....                 68,444                2        
10,728  

         Connecticu t ........                 235,941                8        
5,077  

        New York .. . . . . . . . .         352,915                12        
6,619  

        New Jersey .. . . . . . . .         119,856                6        
6,408  

         Pennsylvan ia.......                 432,880                15       
10                 96,648           Delaware.... .......                 55,538
               1         26,680

           Maryland ..........                 278,503                9        
18,191  

         Virginia .. . . . . . . . . . .         630,558                21     
   24,540 

          Kentucky ..........                 68,705                2        
10,989  

         North Carolina. . . . . .         353,521                12       
7,225  

         South Carolina .. . . . .         206,236                7        
4,230

           Virginia .. . . . . . . . . . .         70,843                2     
     23,137         105,582                                           3,636,312
                119         202,230         202,230 



Whatever may have been the intention, the effect of neglecting the nearest
divisor, (which leaves but one residuary member,) and adopting a distant one
(which leaves eight), is merely to take a member from New York and Pennsylvan
ia, each, and give them to Vermont and New Hampshire. But it will  be said,
this is giving more than one for 30,000. True, but has it not been just said
that the one for 30,000 is prescribed only to fix the aggregate number, and
that we are not to mind it when we come to apportion them among the States?
That for this 



208 Jefferson's Works 



we must recur to the former rule which distributes them according to the
numbers in each State? Besides does not the bill itself apportion among seven
of the States by the ratio of 27,770? which is much more than one for 30,000. 



Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that
which will bring upon us the fewest inconvenie nces. Let us weigh those
resulting from both constructio ns. 



From that giving to each State a member for every 30,000 in that State results
the single inconvenie nce that there may be large portions unrepresen ted, but
it being a mere hazard on which State this will fall, hazard will equalize it
in the long run. From the others result exactly the same inconvenie nce. A
thousand cases may be imagined to prove it. Take one. Suppose eight of the
States had 45,000 inhabitants each, and the other seven 44,999 each, that is to
say each one less than each of the others. The aggregate would be 674,993, and
the number of representa tives at one for 30,000 of the aggregate, would be 22.
Then, after giving one member to each State, distribute the seven residuary
members among the seven highest fractions, and though the difference of
population be only an unit, the representa tion would be the double. 



                                                         Fractions.

          1st .................. .....           45,000         2         
15,000  

         2d.............. ...........         45,000         2          15,000 


         3d.............. ...........          45,000         2          15,000
 

        4th .................. .....          45,000         2          15,000 



Official Papers 209 



                                                         Fractions.  

        5th. .................. .....         45,000        2         15,000  

        6th. .................. .....         45,000        2         15,000  

        7th .......................         45,000        2         15,000  

        8th. .............'.... ......         45,000        1         15,000  

        9th. . .................. ...         44,999        1         14,999  

        10th. .................. .....         44,999        1         14,999  

        11th. .................. .....         44,999        1         14,999

          12th. .................. .....         44,999        1         14,999
 

        13th. .................. .....         44,999        1         14,999  

        14th. .................. .....         44,999        1         14,999  

        15th. .................. .....                                         
      14,999                                                                  
674,993        22 



Here a single inhabitant the more would count as 30,000. Nor is this case
imaginable, only it will resemble the real one whenever the fractions happen to
be pretty equal through the whole States. The numbers of our census happen by
accident to give the fractions all very small, or very great, so as to produce
the strongest case of inequality that could possibly have occurred, and which
may never occur again. The probability is that the fractions will generally
descend gradually from 29,999 to 1. The inconvenie nce then of large
unrepresented fractions attends both constructio ns; and while the most obvious
constructio n is liable to no other, that