with foreign nations will be constantly at the discretion of individuals.

2. Have the legislators sent this question before the Courts by any law already provided? The act of 1789, chapter 20, section 9, says the district courts shall have cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, of all causes, where an alien sues for a tort only, in violation of the law of nations: but what if there be no alien whose interest is such as to support an action for the tort?—which is precisely the case of the aggression on Florida. If the act in describing the jurisdiction of the Courts, had given them cognizance of proceedings by way of indictment or information against offenders under the law of nations, for the public wrong, and on the public behalf, as well as to an individual for the special tort, it would have been the thing desired.

The same act, section 13, says, the "Supreme Court shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently, with the law of nations."-Still this is not the case, no ambassador, &c., being concerned here. I find nothing else in the law applicable to this question, and therefore presume the case is still to be provided for, and that this may be done by enlarging the jurisdiction of the courts, so that they may sustain indictments and informations on the public behalf, for offences against the law of nations.

[A note added by Mr. Jefferson at a later period.]

On further examination it does appear that the 11th section of the judiciary act above cited gives to the circuit courts exclusively, cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, and not otherwise provided for. This removes the difficulty, however, but one step further ;-for questions then arise, 1st. What is the peculiar character of the of fence in question; to wit, treason, felony, misdemeanor, or trespass? 2d. What is its specific punishment-capital or what? 3d. Whence is the venue to come?

XXXI.-Report on Assays at the Mint, communicated to the House of Representatives, January 8, 1793.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the President of the United States, the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th of November, 1792, on the subject of experiments of France, England, Spain, and Portugal, reports:

That assays and experiments have been, accordingly, made at the mint, by the director, and under his care and inspection, of sundry gold and silver coins of France, England, Spain, and Portugal, and of the quantity of fine gold and alloy in each of them, and the specific gravities of those of gold given in by the director, a copy of which, and of the letter covering it, are contained in the papers marked A and B.

A.

January 7, 1793.

SIR:-I have, herewith, enclosed the result of our assays, &c., of the coins of France, England, Spain, and Portugal. In the course of the experiments, a very small source of error was detected, too late for the present occasion, but which will be carefully guarded against in future.

I am, with the most perfect esteem, your most obedient humble servant, DAVID RITTENHOUSE, Director of the Mint.

Assayed by Mr. David Ott, under my inspection, at the mint, in pursuance of a resolution of Congress of November 29, 1792. I have added the specific gravity of each piece of gold coin. DAVID RITTENHOUSE, Director of the Mint.

XXXII.-Report on the petition of John Rogers, relative to certain lands on the north-east side of the Tennessee.

February 16, 1793.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives of the United States, the petition of John Rogers, setting forth, that as an officer of the State of Virginia,

during the last war, he became entitled to two thousand acres of lands on the north-east side of the Tennessee, at its confluence with the Ohio, and to two thousand four hundred acres in different parcels, between the same river and the Mississippi, all of them within the former limit of Virginia, which lands were allotted to him under an act of the Legislature of Virginia, before its deed of cession to the United States; that by the treaty of Hopewell, in 1786, the part of the country comprehending these lands was ceded to the Chickasaw Indians; and praying compensation for the same,

Reports, That the portion of country comprehending the said parcels of land, has been ever understood to be claimed, and has certainly been used, by the Chickasaw and Cherokee Indians for their hunting grounds. The Chickasaws holding exclusively from the Mississippi to the Tennessee, and extending their claim across that river, eastwardly, into the claims of the Cherokees, their conterminous neighbors.

That the government of Virginia was so well apprized of the rights of the Chickasaws to a portion of country within the limit of that State, that about the year 1780, they instructed their agent, residing with the southern Indians, to avail himself of the first opportunity which should offer, to purchase the same from them, and that, therefore, any act of that Legislature allotting these lands to their officers and soldiers must probably have been passed on the supposition, that a purchase of the Indian right could be made, which purchase, however, has never been made.

That, at the treaty of Hopewell, the true boundary between the United States on the one part, and the Cherokees and Chickasaws on the other, was examined into and acknowledged, and by consent of all parties, the unsettled limits between the Cherokees and Chickasaws were at the same time ascertained, and in that part particularly, were declared to be the highlands dividing the waters of the Cumberland and Tennessee, whereby the whole of the petitioner's locations were found to be in the Chickasaw country.

That the right of occupation of the Cherokees and Chickasaws in this portion of the country, having never been obtained by the United States, or those under whom they claim it, cannot be said to have been ceded by them at the treaty of Hopewell, but only recognized as belonging to the Chickasaws, and retained to them.

That the country south of the Ohio was formerly contested between the Six Nations and the southern Indians for hunting grounds.

That the Six Nations sold for a valuable consideration to the then government their right to that country, describing it as extending from the mouth of the Tennessee upwards. That no evidence can at this time and place be procured, as to the right of the southern Indians, that is to say, the Cherokees and Chickasaws, to the same country; but it is believed that they voluntarily withdrew their claims within the Cumberland river, retaining their right so far, which consequently could not be conveyed from them, or to us, by the act of the Six Nations, unless it be proved that the Six Nations had acquired a right to the country between the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers by conquest over the Cherokees and Chickasaws, which it is believed cannot be proved.

That, therefore, the locations of the petitioner must be considered as made within the Indian territory, and insusceptible of being reduced into his possession, till the Indian right be purchased.

That this places him on the same footing with Charles Russell and others, officers of the same State, who had located their bounty lands in like manner, within the Chickasaw lines, whose case was laid before the House of Representatives of the United States at the last session, and remains undecided on; and that the same and no other measure should be dealt to this petitioner which shall be provided for them.