most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
P. S. 1 omitted to draw your attention to an additional duty of one cent
per gallon on rum, by name. This was intended as some discrimination
between England and France. It would have been higher, but for the fear
of affecting the revenues in a contrary direction. T.J.
LETTER LV.--TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, March 17,1791
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
Philadelphia, March 17,1791.
Sir,
The term of the first Congress having expired on the 3rd instant,
they separated on that day, much important business being necessarily
postponed. New elections have taken place for the most part, and very
few changes made. This is one of many proofs, that the proceedings of
the new government have given general satisfaction. Some acts, indeed,
have produced local discontents; but these can never be avoided. The new
Congress will meet on the 4th Monday of October. Enclosed is the copy
of an act reported by a committee to the late Congress, who, not having
time to go through the subject, referred it to me, to be examined and
reported to the next Congress. This measure, therefore, will be proposed
to them as a first and immediate step, and perhaps something further
at a more distant day. I have sent copies of this act to Mr. Short and
Colonel Humphreys, and I enclose this to you, that you may communicate
it to the court of Madrid, as a measure in contemplation with us. How
far such an one may be politic to be adopted by Spain, France, and
Portugal, is for them to consider. The measure is perfectly innocent as
to all nations except those, or rather that, which has a navigation
act; and to that it retorts only its own principles. Being founded
in universal reciprocity, it is impossible it should excite a single
complaint. Its consequences on that nation are such as they cannot
avoid; for either they must repeal their navigation act, in order to be
let in to a share of foreign carriage, or the shipping they now employ
in foreign carriage will be out of employ, and this act frustrated,
on which their naval power is built. Consequently, that power will be
reduced within safer limits, and the freedom of the ocean be better
secured to all the world. The more extensive the adoption of this
measure is, the more irresistible will be its effect. We would not wish
to be declared the exciters of such a concert of measures, but we have
thought it expedient to suggest informally to the courts of France,
Spain, and Portugal, the measure we propose to take, and to leave with
them to decide, on the motives of their own interest, how far it may be
expedient for them to adopt a similar measure. Their concurrence will
more completely insure the object of our act, and therefore I leave it
to yourself to insinuate it with all the discretion and effect you can.
Your letter of May the 6th, 1789, is still the last we have received,
and that is now near two years old. A letter from Colonel Humphreys,
written within twenty-four hours after his arrival at Madrid, reached us
within two months and ten days after its date. A full explanation of the
causes of this suspension of all information from you, is expected
in answer to my letter of August the 6th. It will be waited for yet a
reasonable time, and in the mean while, a final opinion suspended. By
the first vessel to Cadiz, the laws and gazettes shall be forwarded.
I have the honor to be, with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient and
most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LVI.--TO WILLIAM SHORT, March 19, 1791
TO WILLIAM SHORT.
Philadelphia, March 19, 1791.
Dear Sir,
Your letter of November the 6th, No. 46, by Mr. Osmont came to hand
yesterday, and I have just time before the departure of Mr. Terrasson,
the bearer of my letter of the 15th instant, and despatches accompanying
it, to acknowledge the receipt, and inform you that it has been laid
before the President. On consideration of the circumstances stated in
the second page of your letter, he is of opinion, that it is expedient
to press at this moment a settlement of our difference with Spain. You
are therefore desired, instead of confining your application for the
interference of the court of France to the simple case of St. Marie,
mentioned in my letter of the 12th, to ask it on the broad bottom of
general necessity, that our right of navigating the Mississippi be at
length ceded by the court of Madrid, and be ceded in such form, as to
render the exercise of it efficacious and free from chicane. This cannot
be without an _entrepôt_ in some convenient port of the river, where
the river and sea craft may meet and exchange loads, without any control
from the laws of the Spanish government. This subject was so fully
developed to you in my letter of August the 10th, 1790, that I shall at
present only refer to that. We wish you to communicate this matter
fully to the Marquis de la Fayette, to ask his influence and assistance,
assuring him that a settlement of this matter is become indispensable
to us; any further delay exposing our peace, both at home and abroad, to
accidents, the results of which are incalculable and must no longer be
hazarded. His friendly interposition on this occasion, as well as that
of his nation, will be most sensibly felt by us. To his discretion,
therefore, and yours, we confide this matter, trusting that you will
so conduct it as to obtain our right in an efficacious form, and at the
same time, to preserve to us the friendship of France and Spain, the
latter of which we value much, and the former infinitely.
Mr. Carmichael is instructed to press this matter at Madrid; yet if the
Marquis and yourself think it could be better effected at Paris, with
the Count de Nunez, it is left to you to endeavor to draw it there.
Indeed, we believe it would be more likely to be settled there than at
Madrid or here. Observe always, that to accept the navigation of the
river without an entrepot would be perfectly useless, and that an
entrepot, if trammeled, would be a certain instrument for bringing on
war instead of preventing it.
I am, with great esteem, Dear Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LVII.--TO MR. OTTO, March 29, 1791
TO MR. OTTO.
Philadelphia, March 29, 1791.
Sir,
The note of December the 13th, which you did me the honor to address to
me, on the acts of Congress of the 20th of July, 1789, and 1790, fixing
the tonnage payable by foreign vessels arriving from a foreign port,
without excepting those of France, has been submitted to the government
of the United States. They consider the conduct of his Most Christian
Majesty, in making this the subject of fair discussion and explanation,
as a new proof of his justice and friendship, and they have entered on
the consideration with all the respect due to whatever comes from his
Majesty or his ministers, and with all the dispositions to find grounds
for an union of opinion, which a sincere attachment to your nation and
a desire to meet their wishes on every occasion, could inspire. But
the fifth article of the treaty of amity and commerce is not seen here
exactly in the point of view, in which your note places it.
The third and fourth articles subject the vessels of each nation to
pay in the ports of the other, only such duties as are paid by the
most favored nation; and give them reciprocally, all the privileges and
exemptions in navigation and commerce, which are given by either to the
most favored nations. Had the contracting parties stopped here, they
would have been free to raise or lower their tonnage, as they should
find it expedient; only taking care to keep the other on the footing of
the most favored nation.
The question then is, whether the fifth article, cited in the note, is
any thing more than an application of the principle comprised in the
third and fourth, to a particular object: or whether it is an additional
stipulation of something not so comprised.
I. That it is merely an application of a principle comprised in the
preceding articles, is declared by the express words of the article,
to wit, _dans l’exemption ci-dessus est nommément compris_, &c: ‘In the
above exemption is particularly comprised the imposition of one hundred
sols per ton, established in France on foreign vessels.’ Here then is
at once an express declaration, that the exemption from the duty of one
hundred sols is comprised in the third and fourth articles; that is to
say, it was one of the exemptions enjoyed by the most favored nations,
and, as such, extended to us by those articles. If the exemption spoken
of in this first member of the fifth article was comprised in the third
and fourth articles, as is expressly declared, then the reservation by
France out of that exemption, (which makes the second member of the same
article) was also comprised: that is to say, if the whole was comprised,
the part was comprised. And if this reservation of France in the second
member, was comprised in the third and fourth articles, then the counter
reservation by the United States (which constitutes the third and the
last member of the same article) was also comprised. Because it is but
a corresponding portion of a similar whole, on our part, which had been
comprised by the same terms with theirs.
In short, the whole article relates to a particular duty of one hundred
sols, laid by some antecedent law of France on the vessels of foreign
nations, relinquished as to the most favored, and consequently as to
us. It is not a new and additional stipulation then, but a declared
application of the stipulations comprised in the preceding articles to a
particular case, by way of greater caution.
The doctrine laid down generally in the third and fourth articles, and
exemplified specially in the fifth, amounts to this. ‘The vessels of the
most favored nation, coming from foreign ports, are exempted from the
duty of one hundred sols: therefore, you are exempted from it by the
third and fourth articles. The vessels of the most favored nations,
coming coastwise, pay that duty: therefore, you are to pay it by the
third and fourth articles. We shall not think it unfriendly in you, to
lay a like duty on coasters, because it will be no more than we have
done ourselves. You are free also to lay that or any other duty on
vessels coming from foreign ports, provided they apply to all other
nations, even the most favored. We are free to do the same, under the
same restriction. Our exempting you from a duty which the most favored
nations do not pay, does not exempt you from one which they do pay.’
In this view, it is evident, that the fifth article neither enlarges
nor abridges the stipulations of the third and fourth. The effect of
the treaty would have been precisely the same, had it been omitted
altogether; consequently, it may be truly said that the reservation by
the United States, in this article, is completely useless. And it may
be added with equal truth, that the equivalent reservation by France
is completely useless, as well as her previous abandonment of the same
duty: and in short, the whole article. Each party then remains free to
raise or lower its tonnage, provided the change operates on all nations,
even the most favored.
Without undertaking to affirm, we may obviously conjecture, that this
article has been inserted on the part of the United States, from an
over caution to guard, _nommément_, by name, against a particular
aggrievance, which they thought could never be too well secured against:
and that has happened, which generally happens; doubts have been
produced by the too great number of words used to prevent doubt.
II. The court of France, however, understands this article as intended
to introduce something to which the preceding articles had not reached,
and not merely as an application of them to a particular case. Their
opinion seems to be founded on the general rule in the construction of
instruments, to leave no words merely useless, for which any rational
meaning can be found. They say, that the reservation by the United
States of a right to lay a duty equivalent to that of the one hundred
sols, reserved by France, would have been completely useless, if they
were left free by the preceding articles, to lay a tonnage to any
extent whatever; consequently, that the reservation of a part proves a
relinquishment of the residue.
If some meaning, and such a one, is to be given to the last member
of the article, some meaning, and a similar one, must be given to the
corresponding member. If the reservation by the United States of a right
to lay an equivalent duty, implies a relinquishment of their right to
lay any other, the reservation by France of a right to continue
the specified duty, to which it is an equivalent, must imply a
relinquishment of the right on her part, to lay or continue any other.
Equivalent reservations by both, must imply equivalent restrictions on
both. The exact reciprocity stipulated in the preceding articles, and
which pervades every part of the treaty, ensures a counter right to each
party for every right ceded to the other.
Let it be further considered, that the duty called tonnage, in the
United States, is in lieu of the duties for anchorage, for the support
of buoys, beacons, and light-houses, to guide the mariner into harbor
and along the coast, which are provided and supported at the expense of
the United States, and for fees to measurers, weighers, guagers, &c,
who are paid by the United States; for which articles, among many others
(light excepted), duties are paid by us in the ports of France, under
their specific names. That government has hitherto thought these duties
consistent with the treaty; and consequently, the same duties under a
general instead of specific names, with us, must be equally consistent
with it: it is not the name, but the thing, which is essential. If we
have renounced the right to lay any port duties, they must be understood
to have equally renounced that of either laying new or continuing the
old. If we ought to refund the port duties received from their vessels
since the date of the act of Congress, they should refund the port
duties they have received from our vessels since the date of the treaty,
for nothing short of this is the reciprocity of the treaty.
If this construction be adopted, then each party has for ever renounced
the right of laying any duties on the vessels of the other coming
from any foreign port, or more than one hundred sols on those coming
coastwise. Could this relinquishment be confined to the two contracting
parties alone, its effect would be calculable. But the exemption
once conceded by the one nation to the other, becomes immediately
the property of all others who are on the footing of the most favored
nations. It is true, that those others would be obliged to yield the
same compensation, that is to say, to receive our vessels duty free.
Whether France and the United States would gain or lose in the exchange
of the measure with them, is not easy to say.
Another consequence of this construction will be, that the vessels of
the most favored nations, paying no duties, will be on a better footing
than those of natives, which pay a moderate duty: consequently, either
the duty on these also must be given up, or they will be supplanted by
foreign vessels in our own ports.
The resource, then, of duty on vessels, for the purposes either of
revenue or regulation, will be for ever lost to both. It is
hardly conceivable that either party, looking forward to all these
consequences, would see their interest in them. So that on the
whole, Sir, we consider the fifth article of the treaty merely as an
illustration of the third and fourth articles, by an application of
the principles comprised in them to the case stated in that, and that
a contrary construction would exceedingly embarrass and injure both
the contracting parties. We feel every disposition on our part to make
considerable sacrifices, where they would result to the sole benefit
of your nation: but where they would excite from other nations
corresponding claims, it becomes necessary to proceed with caution. You
probably know, Sir, that the general subject of navigation was before
our legislature at their last session, and was postponed merely for the
want of time to go through it, before the period arrived to which the
constitution had limited their existence. It will be resumed at the
meeting of the new legislature, and from a knowledge of the sincere
attachment of my countrymen to the prosperity of your nation, and to
the increase of our intercourse with it, I may safely say for the
new legislature, that the encouragement of that intercourse, for
the advantage of both parties, will be considered as among the most
interesting branches of the general subject submitted to them. From a
perfect conviction of the coincidence of our interests, nobody wishes
more sincerely to cultivate the habit of mutual good offices and favors,
than he who has the honor to be, with sentiments of the greatest respect
and esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER--FROM THE PRESIDENT, April 4, 1791
Thomas Jefferson presents his respects to the Vice-President of the
United States, and has the honor to enclose him the copy of a letter
from the President, just now received.
April 8, 1791.
[The annexed is the letter referred to.]
Mount Vernon, April 4, 1791. Gentlemen,
As the public service may require that communications should be made to
me, during my absence from the seat of government, by the most direct
conveyances, and as, in the event of any very extraordinary occurrence,
it will be necessary to know at what time I may be found in any
particular place, I have to inform you, that unless the progress of my
journey to Savannah is retarded by unforeseen interruptions, it will be
regulated (including days of halt) in the following manner. I shall be,
On the 8th of April, at Fredericksburg,
“11th” Richmond,
“14th” Petersburg,
“16th” Halifax,
“18th” Tarborough,
“20th” Newbern, ‘
“24th” Wilmington,
“29th” Georgetown, South Carolina,
On the 2nd of May, at Charleston, halting five days,
“11th” Savannah, halting two days.
Thence, leaving the line of the mail, I shall proceed to Augusta, and
according to the information which I may receive there, my return, by
an upper road, will be regulated. The route of my return is at present
uncertain, but in all probability it will be through Columbia, Camden,
Charlotte, Salisbury, Salem, Guilford, Hillsborough, Harrisburg,
Williamsburg to Taylor’s Ferry on the Roanoke, and thence to
Fredericksburg by the nearest and best road.
After thus explaining to you, as far as I am able at present, the
direction and probable progress of my journey, I have to express my
wish, if any serious and important case should arise during my absence
(of which the probability is but too strong), that the Secretaries for
the departments of State, Treasury, and War, may hold consultations
thereon, to determine whether they are of such a nature as to require my
personal attendance at the seat of government, and if they should be
so considered, I will return immediately from any place at which
the information may reach me; or should they determine that measures
relevant to the case may be legally and properly pursued, without
the immediate agency of the President, I will approve and ratify the
measures which may be conformed to such determination.
Presuming that the Vice-President will have left the seat of government
for Boston, I have not requested his opinion to be taken on the supposed
emergency. Should it be otherwise, I wish him also to be consulted.
I am, Gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
G. Washington.
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Henry Knox, Esquires,
Secretaries of the United States for the departments of State, Treasury,
and War.
LETTER LVIII.--TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, April 11, 1791
TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS.
Philadelphia, April 11, 1791.
Dear Sir,
I wrote you March the 15th, with postscripts of the 18th and 19th. Since
that, yours of January the 3rd, No. 10, January the 15th, No. 11, from
Madrid, February the 6th, No. 12, and February the 12th, No. 13, from
Lisbon, have been received. They covered a letter from Mr. Carmichael,
the only one we have from him of later date than May, 1789. You know
that my letter to him, of which you were the bearer, took notice of the
intermission of his correspondence, and the one enclosed to him in my
letter to you of March the 15th, being written when this intermission
was felt still stronger, as having continued so much longer, conveyed
stronger marks of dissatisfaction. Though his letter, now received,
convinces us he has been active in procuring intelligence, yet it does
not appear that he has been equally assiduous in procuring means of
conveyance, which was the more incumbent on him, in proportion as the
government was more jealous and watchful. Still, however, I wish him to
receive the letter now enclosed for him, herein, as it softens what had
been harder said, and shows a disposition rather to look forward than
backward. I hope you will receive it in time to forward with the other.
It contains important matter, pressing on him, as I wish to do on
you and have done on Mr. Short, to engage your respective courts in
a co-operation in our navigation act. Procure us all the information
possible, as to the strength, riches, resources, lights, and
dispositions of Brazil. The jealousy of the court of Lisbon on this
subject, will, of course, inspire you with due caution in making and
communicating these inquiries.
The acts of the three sessions of Congress, and Fenno’s papers from
April, 1790, were sent you with my last. You will now receive the
continuation of Fenno’s paper. I send for Mr. Carmichael, also, laws and
newspapers, in hopes you may find some means of conveying them to him.
I must sometimes avail myself of your channel to write to him, till we
shall have a Consul at Cadiz.
I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your
most obedient, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LIX.--TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, April 11,1791
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
Philadelphia, April 11,1791.
Sir,
I wrote you on the 12th of March, and again on the 17th of the same
month; since which, I have received your favor of January the 24th,
wherein you refer to copies of two letters, also to a paper, No. 1,
supposed to be enclosed in that letter; but there was nothing enclosed.
You speak particularly of several other letters formerly forwarded, but
not a single one was ever received of later date than May the 6th, 1789;
and this of January the 24th is all we possess from you since that date.
I enclose you a list of letters addressed to you on various subjects,
and to which answers were, and are, naturally expected; and send you
again copies of the papers in the case of the Dover Cutter, which has
been the subject of so many of those letters, and is the subject of
the constant solicitation of the parties here. A final decision on that
application, therefore, is earnestly desired. When you consider
the repeated references of matters to you from hence, and the total
suppression of whatever you have written in answer, you will not
be surprised if it had excited a great degree of uneasiness. We had
inquired whether private conveyances did not occur, from time to time,
from Madrid to Cadiz, where we have vessels almost constantly, and we
were assured that such conveyances were frequent. On the whole, Sir,
you will be sensible, that under the jealous government with which you
reside, the conveyance of intelligence requires as much management as
the obtaining it; and I am in hopes, that in future you will be on your
guard against those infidelities in that line, under which you and we
have so much suffered.