mission advisable, and accordingly appointed James Monroe minister
extraordinary and plenipotentiary to repair to Madrid, and in
conjunction with our minister resident there to endeavor to procure a
ratification of the former convention and to come to an understanding
with Spain as to the boundaries of Louisiana. It appeared at once that
her policy was to reserve herself for events, and in the meantime to
keep our differences in an undetermined state. This will be evident
from the papers now communicated to you. After nearly five months of
fruitless endeavor to bring them to some definite and satisfactory
result, our ministers ended the conferences without having been able to
obtain indemnity for spoliations of any description or any satisfaction
as to the boundaries of Louisiana, other than a declaration that we had
no rights eastward of the Iberville, and that our line to the west was
one which would have left us but a string of land on that bank of the
river Mississippi. Our injured citizens were thus left without any
prospect of retribution from the wrongdoer, and as to boundary each
party was to take its own course. That which they have chosen to pursue
will appear from the documents now communicated. They authorize the
inference that it is their intention to advance on our possessions until
they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress
alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our
condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their
authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. I have
barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the
aggressions to protect our citizens from violence, to patrol within the
borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when
necessary to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property; and
the Spanish officers remaining at New Orleans are required to depart
without further delay. It ought to be noted here that since the late
change in the state of affairs in Europe Spain has ordered her cruisers
and courts to respect our treaty with her.
The conduct of France and the part she may take in the misunderstandings
between the United States and Spain are too important to be
unconsidered. She was prompt and decided in her declarations that our
demands on Spain for French spoliations carried into Spanish ports were
included in the settlement between the United States and France. She
took at once the ground that she had acquired no right from Spain, and
had meant to deliver us none eastward of the Iberville, her silence as
to the western boundary leaving us to infer her opinion might be against
Spain in that quarter. Whatever direction she might mean to give to
these differences, it does not appear that she has contemplated their
proceeding to actual rupture, or that at the date of our last advices
from Paris her Government had any suspicion of the hostile attitude
Spain had taken here; on the contrary, we have reason to believe that
she was disposed to effect a settlement on a plan analogous to what our
ministers had proposed, and so comprehensive as to remove as far as
possible the grounds of future collision and controversy on the eastern
as well as western side of the Mississippi.
The present crisis in Europe is favorable for pressing such a
settlement, and not a moment should be lost in availing ourselves of
it. Should it pass unimproved, our situation would become much more
difficult. Formal war is not necessary--it is not probable it will
follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our
country require that force should be interposed to a certain degree it
will probably contribute to advance the object of peace,
But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which
it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I
communicate every fact material for their information and the documents
necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then,
I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal
that which they shall approve.
TH. JEFFERSON.
DECEMBER 11, 1805.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I now lay before the Senate the several treaties and conventions
following, which have been entered into on the part of the United
States since their last session:
1. A treaty of peace and amity between the United States of America
and the Bashaw, Bey, and subjects of Tripoli, in Barbary.
2. A treaty between the United States and the Wyandot, Ottawa, Chippewa,
Munsee, and Delaware, Shawnee, and Potawatamie nations of Indians.
3. A treaty between the United States and the agents of the Connecticut
Land Companies on one part and the Wyandot, Ottawa, Chippewa, Munsee,
and Delaware, Shawnee, and Potawatamie nations of Indians.
4. A treaty between the United States and the Delawares, Potawatamies,
Miamis, Eel-rivers, and Weeas.
5. A treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw Nation of
Indians.
6. A treaty between the United States of America and the Cherokee
Indians.
7. A convention between the United States and the Creek Nation of
Indians; with the several documents necessary for their explanation.
The Senate having dissented to the ratification of the treaty with the
Creeks submitted to them at their last session, which gave a sum of
$200,000 for the country thereby conveyed, it is proper now to observe
that instead of that sum, which was equivalent to a perpetual annuity of
$12,000, the present purchase gives them an annuity of $12,000 for eight
years only and of $11,000 for ten years more, the payments of which
would be effected by a present sum of $130,000 placed at an annual
interest of 6 per cent. If from this sum we deduct the reasonable
value of the road ceded through the whole length of their country from
Ocmulgee toward New Orleans, a road of indispensable necessity to us,
the present convention will be found to give little more than the half
of the sum which was formerly proposed to be given. This difference is
thought sufficient to justify the presenting this subject a second time
to the Senate. On these several treaties I have to request that the
Senate will advise whether I shall ratify them or not.
TH. JEFFERSON.
DECEMBER 23, 1805.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
The governor and presiding judge of the Territory of Michigan have made
a report to me of the state of that Territory, several matters in which
being within the reach of the legislative authority only, I lay the
report before Congress.
TH. JEFFERSON.
DECEMBER 31, 1805.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I now communicate to the House of Representatives all the information
which the executive offices furnish on the subject of their resolution
of the 23d instant respecting the States indebted to the United States.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 10, 1806.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with the request of the Senate expressed in their
resolution of December 27, I now lay before them such documents and
papers (there being no other information in my possession) as relate to
complaints by the Government of France against the commerce carried on
by the citizens of the United States to the French island of St.
Domingo.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 13, 1806.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
According to the request of the Senate of December 30, I now lay before
them the correspondence of the naval commanders Barron and Rodgers and
of Mr. Eaton, late consul at Tunis, respecting the progress of the
war with Tripoli, antecedent to the treaty with the Bey and Regency
of Tripoli, and respecting the negotiations for the same, and the
commission and instructions of Mr. Eaton, with such other correspondence
in possession of the offices as I suppose may be useful to the Senate in
their deliberations upon the said treaty.
The instructions which were given to Mr. Lear, the consul-general at
Algiers, respecting the negotiations for the said treaty accompanied
the treaty and the message concerning the same, and are now with them
in possession of the Senate.
So much of these papers has been extracted and communicated to the House
of Representatives as relates to the principles of the cooperation
between the United States and Hamet Caramalli, which is the subject
of a joint message to both Houses of Congress bearing equal date with
the present, and as those now communicated to the Senate comprehend
the whole of that matter, I request that they may be considered as
comprising the documents stated in that message as accompanying it.
Being mostly originals or sole copies, a return of them is requested
at the convenience of the Senate.
We have no letter from Mr. Lear respecting Tripoline affairs of later
date than that of July 5, which was transmitted to the Senate with the
treaty, nor, consequently, any later information what steps have been
taken to carry into effect the stipulation for the delivery of the wife
and children of the brother of the reigning Bashaw of Tripoli.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 13, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
I lay before Congress the application of Hamet Caramalli, elder brother
of the reigning Bashaw of Tripoli, soliciting from the United States
attention to his services and sufferings in the late war against
that State; and in order to possess them of the ground on which that
application stands, the facts shall be stated according to the views
and information of the Executive.
During the war with Tripoli it was suggested that Hamet Caramalli, elder
brother of the reigning Bashaw, and driven by him from his throne,
meditated the recovery of his inheritance, and that a concert in action
with us was desirable to him. We considered that concerted operations
by those who have a common enemy were entirely justifiable, and might
produce effects favorable to both without binding either to guarantee
the objects of the other. But the distance of the scene, the
difficulties of communication, and the uncertainty of our information
inducing the less confidence in the measure, it was committed to our
agents as one which might be resorted to if it promised to promote our
success.
Mr. Eaton, however (our late consul), on his return from the
Mediterranean, possessing personal knowledge of the scene and having
confidence in the effect of a joint operation, we authorized Commodore
Barron, then proceeding with his squadron, to enter into an
understanding with Hamet if he should deem it useful; and as it was
represented that he would need some aids of arms and ammunition, and
even of money, he was authorized to furnish them to a moderate extent,
according to the prospect of utility to be expected from it. In order to
avail him of the advantages of Mr. Eaton's knowledge of circumstances,
an occasional employment was provided for the latter as an agent for the
Navy in that sea. Our expectation was that an intercourse should be kept
up between the ex-Bashaw and the commodore; that while the former moved
on by land our squadron should proceed with equal pace, so as to arrive
at their destination together and to attack the common enemy by land and
sea at the same time. The instructions of June 6 to Commodore Barron
shew that a cooperation only was intended, and by no means an union
of our object with the fortune of the ex-Bashaw, and the commodore's
letters of March 22 and May 19 prove that he had the most correct idea
of our intentions. His verbal instructions, indeed, to Mr. Eaton and
Captain Hull, if the expressions are accurately committed to writing
by those gentlemen, do not limit the extent of his cooperation as
rigorously as he probably intended; but it is certain from the
ex-Bashaw's letter of January 3, written when he was proceeding to join
Mr. Eaton, and in which he says, "Your operations should be carried on
by sea, mine by land," that he left the position in which he was with a
proper idea of the nature of the cooperation. If Mr. Eaton's subsequent
convention should appear to bring forward other objects, his letter of
April 29 and May 1 views this convention but as provisional, the second
article, as he expressly states, guarding it against any ill effect; and
his letter of June 30 confirms this construction.
In the event it was found that after placing the ex-Bashaw in possession
of Derne, one of the most important cities and provinces of the country,
where he had resided himself as governor, lie was totally unable to
command any resources or to bear any part in cooperation with us. This
hope was then at an end, and we certainly had never contemplated, nor
were we prepared, to land an army of our own, or to raise, pay, or
subsist an army of Arabs to march from Derne to Tripoli and to carry
on a land war at such a distance from our resources. Our means and our
authority were merely naval, and that such were the expectations of
Hamet his letter of June 29 is an unequivocal acknowledgment. While,
therefore, an impression from the capture of Derne might still operate
at Tripoli, and an attack on that place from our squadron was daily
expected. Colonel Lear thought it the best moment to listen to overtures
of peace then made by the Bashaw. He did so, and while urging provisions
for the United States he paid attention also to the interests of Hamet,
but was able to effect nothing more than to engage the restitution of
his family, and even the persevering in this demand suspended for some
time the conclusion of the treaty.
In operations at such a distance it becomes necessary to leave much to
the discretion of the agents employed, but events may still turn up
beyond the limits of that discretion. Unable in such a case to consult
his Government, a zealous citizen will act as he believes that would
direct him were it apprised of the circumstances, and will take on
himself the responsibility. In all these cases the purity and patriotism
of the motives should shield the agent from blame, and even secure a
sanction where the error is not too injurious. Should it be thought by
any that the verbal instructions said to have been given by Commodore
Barron to Mr. Eaton amount to a stipulation that the United States
should place Hamet Caramalli on the throne of Tripoli--a stipulation so
entirely unauthorized, so far beyond our views, and so onerous could not
be sanctioned by our Government--or should Hamet Caramalli, contrary
to the evidence of his letters of January 3 and June 29, be thought to
have left the position which he now seems to regret, under a mistaken
expectation that we were at all events to place him on his throne, on
an appeal to the liberality of the nation something equivalent to the
replacing him in his former situation might be worthy its consideration.
A nation by establishing a character of liberality and magnanimity gains
in the friendship and respect of others more than the worth of mere
money. This appeal is now made by Hamet Caramalli to the United States.
The ground he has taken being different not only from our views but from
those expressed by himself on former occasions, Mr. Eaton was desired to
state whether any verbal communications passed from him to Hamet which
had varied what we saw in writing. His answer of December 5 is herewith
transmitted, and has rendered it still more necessary that in presenting
to the Legislature the application of Hamet I should present them at
the same time an exact statement of the views and proceedings of the
Executive through this whole business, that they may clearly understand
the ground on which we are placed. It is accompanied by all the papers
which bear any relation to the principles of the cooperation, and which
can inform their judgment in deciding on the application of Hamet
Caramalli.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 15, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
I now render to Congress an account of the grant of $20,000 for the
contingent charges of Government by an act making appropriations for the
support of Government for the year 1805. Of that sum $1,987.50 have been
necessarily applied to the support of the Territorial governments of
Michigan and Louisiana until an opportunity could occur of making a
specific appropriation for that purpose. The balance of $18,012.50
remains in the Treasury.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 17, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
In my message to both Houses of Congress at the opening of their present
session I submitted to their attention, among other subjects, the
oppression of our commerce and navigation by the irregular practices
of armed vessels, public and private, and by the introduction of new
principles derogatory of the rights of neutrals and unacknowledged by
the usage of nations.
The memorials of several bodies of merchants of the United States are
now communicated, and will develop these principles and practices which
are producing the most ruinous effects on our lawful commerce and
navigation.
The rights of a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with every
part of the dominions of a belligerent permitted by the laws of the
country (with the exception of blockaded ports and contraband of war)
was believed to have been decided between Great Britain and the United
States by the sentence of their commissioners mutually appointed
to decide on that and other questions of difference between the two
nations, and by the actual payment of the damages awarded by them
against Great Britain for the infractions of that right. When,
therefore, it was perceived that the same principle was revived with
others more novel and extending the injury, instructions were given
to the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of
London, and remonstrances duly made by him on this subject, as will
appear by documents transmitted herewith. These were followed by a
partial and temporary suspension only, without any disavowal of the
principle. He has therefore been instructed to urge this subject anew,
to bring it more fully to the bar of reason, and to insist on rights too
evident and too important to be surrendered. In the meantime the evil is
proceeding under adjudications founded on the principle which is denied.
Under these circumstances the subject presents itself for the
consideration of Congress.
On the impressment of our seamen our remonstrances have never been
intermitted. A hope existed at one moment of an arrangement which might
have been submitted to, but it soon passed away, and the practice,
though relaxed at times in the distant seas, has been constantly pursued
in those in our neighborhood. The grounds on which the reclamations on
this subject have been urged will appear in an extract from instructions
to our minister at London now communicated.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 17, 1806
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
The inclosed letter from the minister plenipotentiary of the United
States at the Court of London contains interesting information on
the subjects of my other message of this date. It is sent separately
and confidentially because its publication may discourage frank
communications between our ministers generally and the Governments
with which they reside, and especially between the same ministers.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 24, 1806.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
A convention has been entered into between the United States and the
Cherokee Nation for the extinguishment of the rights of the latter, and
of some unsettled claims in the country north of the river Tennessee,
therein described. This convention is now laid before the Senate for
their advice and consent as to its ratification.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 27, 1806.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
According to the desire of the Senate expressed in their resolution of
the 10th instant, I now communicate to them a report of the Secretary of
State, with its documents, stating certain new principles attempted to
be introduced on the subject of neutral rights, injurious to the rights
and interests of the United States. These, with my message to both
Houses of the 17th instant and the documents accompanying it, fulfill
the desires of the Senate as far as it can be done by any information
in my possession which is authentic and not publicly known.
TH. JEFFERSON.
JANUARY 29, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
Having received from sundry merchants at Baltimore a memorial on the
same subject with those I communicated to Congress with my message of
the 17th instant, I now communicate this also as a proper sequel to the
former, and as making a part of the mass of evidence of the violations
of our rights on the ocean.
TH. JEFFERSON.
FEBRUARY 3, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
A letter has been received from the governor of South Carolina covering
an act of the legislature of that State ceding to the United States
various forts and fortifications and sites for the erection of forts in
that State on the conditions therein expressed. This letter and the act
it covered are now communicated to Congress.
I am not informed whether the positions ceded are the best which
can be taken for securing their respective objects. No doubt is
entertained that the legislature deemed them such. The river of Beaufort,
particularly, said to be accessible to ships of very large size and
capable of yielding them a protection which they can not find elsewhere
but very far to the north, is from these circumstances so interesting to
the Union in general as to merit particular attention and inquiry as to
the positions on it best calculated for health as well as safety.
TH. JEFFERSON.
FEBRUARY 3, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
In the course of the last year the following treaties and conventions
for the extinguishment of Indian title to lands within our limits were
entered into on behalf of the United States:
A treaty between the United States and the Wyandot, Ottawa, Chippeway,
Munsee and Delaware, Shawanee and Pottawatamy nations of Indians.
A treaty between the United States and the agents of the Connecticut
Land Company on one part and the Wyandot and Ottawa, Chippeway, Munsey
and Delaware, Shawanee and Pottawatamy nations of Indians.
A treaty between the United States and the Delawares, Pottawatamies,
Miamis, Eel-rivers, and Weas.
A treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw Nation of Indians.
Two treaties between the United States and the Cherokee Indians.
A convention between the United States and the Creek Nation of Indians.
The Senate having advised and consented to the ratification of these
several treaties and conventions, I now lay them before both Houses of
Congress for the exercise of their constitutional powers as to the means
of fulfilling them.
TH. JEFFERSON.
FEBRUARY 6, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
Since the date of my message of January 17 a letter of the 26th of
November has been received from the minister plenipotentiary of the
United States at London, covering one from the secretary for foreign
affairs of that Government, which, being on the subject of that message,
is now transmitted for the information of Congress. Although nothing
forbids the substance of these letters from being communicated without
reserve, yet so many ill effects proceed from the publications of
correspondences between ministers remaining still in office that I can
not but recommend that these letters be not permitted to be formally
published.
TH; JEFFERSON.
FEBRUARY 19, 1806.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_: