act. I return the letter of Mr. McDonald, as it may be useful for other purposes, and salute you with esteem and respect.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

(ALBERT GALLATIN).

MONTICELLO, July 29, 1808.

DEAR SIR,-I enclose you a letter of information of what is passing on the Canada line. To prevent it is, I suppose, beyond our means, but we must try to harass the unprincipled agents, and punish as many as we can.

I transmit, also, the petition of Tyson and James, millers of Baltimore, for permission to send a load of flour to New Orleans, to direct in it what is regular for I do not see any circumstance in the case sufficiently peculiar to take it out of the rule. If their views are honest, as I suppose them to be, it would be a great relief to them to be permitted, by giving bond for an increased valuation, to send their flour to its destination, and equal relief to us from these tormenting applications. Yet, as the other gentlemen seemed not satisfied that it would be legal, I would not have it done on my own opinion alone, however firmly I am persuaded of its legality. Could you not in the way of conversation with some of the sound lawyers of New York, find what would be their prima facie opinion, and if encouraged by that, we may take the opinion of the Attorney General, and

others. The questions to be solved are,-first: To what place should the valuation refer? and second: Would too high a valuation render the bond null in law? On the first, I observe that the law says that bond shall be given in double the value, etc., without saying whether its value here, or at the place of sale, is meant; that, generally speaking, its value here would be understood; but that whenever the words of a law will bear two meanings, one of which will give effect to the law, and the other will defeat it, the former must be supposed to have been intended by the Legislature, because they could not intend that meaning, which would defeat their intention, in passing that law; and in a statute, as in a will, the intention of the party is to be sought after. On the second point we would ask, who is to value the cargo on which the bond is to be taken? Certainly the collector, either by himself or his agents. When the bond is put in suit it must be recovered. Neither judge nor jury can go into the question of the value of the cargo. If anybody could, it would be the chancellor; but his maxim is never to lend his power in support of fraud or wrong. The common law could only give a remedy on an action for damages, as, for instance, if a collector, by requiring too large security, prevents a party from clearing out, damages might be recovered. But in the case in question, the consent of the party would take away the error, and besides, as the voyage takes place, no damages for preventing it can be recovered. These are gen

eral considerations to be brought into view in such a conversation, which, indeed would recur to every lawyer who turned his mind to the subject at all. It would be a most important construction for the relief of the honest merchant, to whom the amount of bond is important, and to us, also, in the execution of the law; and I think its legality far more defensible than that of limiting the provisions to one-eighth of the cargo. My situation in the country gives me no opportunity to consult lawyers of the first order. Should such occur, however, I will avail myself of them.

I salute you affectionately.

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

(JAMES MADISON).

MONTICELLO, July 29, 1808.

DEAR SIR,-The passport for the Leonidas goes by this post, to the collector of Norfolk. I return you Jarvis', Hackley's, and Montgomery's letters, and send you Hull's, Hunt's, Clarke's, and Mr. Short's, for perusal, and to be returned. On this last, the following questions arise: When exactly shall the next vessel go? Whence? Is not the secrecy of the mission essential? Is it not the very ground of sending it while the Senate is not sitting, in order that it may be kept secret? I doubt the expediency of sending one of our regular armed vessels. If we do, she should go to Petersburg direct.

And yet may there not be advantage in conferences between S. and A.? I have signed the commission and letter of credence, and now enclose them. Yet I must say I think the latter is very questionable indeed, in point of propriety. It says that the Minister is to reside near his person; but whether we should establish it at once into a permanent legation is much to be doubted, and especially in a recess of the Senate. I should think it better to express purposes something like the following: "to bear to your Imperial Majesty the assurances of the sincere friendship of the United States, and of their desire to maintain with your Majesty and your subjects the strictest relations of intercourse and commerce; to explain to your Majesty the position of the United States, and the considerations flowing from that which should keep them aloof from the contests of Europe; to assure your Majesty of their desire to observe a faithful and impartial neutrality, if not forced from that line by the wrongs of the belligerents; and to express their reliance that they will be befriended in these endeavors by your Majesty's powerful influence and friendship towards these States." This is hasty,-it is too long, and neither the expressions nor thoughts sufficiently accurate; but something of this kind, more concise and correct, may be formed, leaving the permanency of the mission still in our power.

There is no doubt but that the transaction at New Orleans, between Ortega and the British officer with

the prize sloop Guadaloupe, has been a mere fraud, to evade our regulation against the sale of prizes in our harbors; and his insolent letter intended merely to cover the fraud. His ready abandonment of the vessel, and Ortega's resumption of her, are clear proofs. Should not, or could not, process be ordered against Ortega and the vessel? I think a copy of Reeve's letter to Governor Claiborne, and of the proceedings of the court, might be sent to Mr. Erskine, with proper observations on this double outrage, and an intimation that the habitual insolence of their officers may force us to refuse them an asylum, even when seeking it in real distress, if the boon is to be abused as it has been by this insolent and dishonest officer. And as it is very possible the rascal may push his impostures to the making complaint to his government, this step with Mr. Erskine may anticipate it.

I salute you with sincere and constant affection.

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR

(HENRY DEARBORN).

MONTICELLO, August 5, 1808.

DEAR SIR,-I enclose you a letter from the Pathkiller and others of the Cherokees, the object of which I do not precisely see. I suppose they are of Van's party. The sentiments are unquestionably those of a white man.

Sibley's letters present a disagreeable view. It

VOL. XII-S