Chapter XXIII: Part III: Continued (22)

The Attorney General having considered and decided that the prescription in the law for establishing a bank, that the officers in the subordinate offices of discount and deposit, shall be appointed "on the same terms and in the same manner practised in the principal bank," does not extend to them the principle of rotation, established by the Legislature in the body of directors in the principal bank, it follows that the extension of that principle has been merely a voluntary and prudential act of the principal bank, from which they are free to depart. I think the extension was wise and proper on their part, because the Legislature having deemed rotation useful in the principal bank constituted by them, there would be the same reason for it in the subordinate banks to be established by the principal. It breaks in upon the _esprit du corps_ so apt to prevail in permanent bodies; it gives a chance for the public eye penetrating into the sanctuary of those proceedings and practices, which the avarice of the directors may introduce for their personal emolument, and which the resentments of excluded directors, or the honesty of those duly admitted, might betray to the public; and it gives an opportunity at the end of the year, or at other periods, of correcting a choice, which, on trial, proves to have been unfortunate; an evil of which themselves complain in their distant institutions. Whether, however, they have a power to alter this, or not, the executive has no right to decide; and their consultation with you has been merely an act of complaisance, or from a desire to shield so important an innovation under the cover of executive sanction. But ought we to volunteer our sanction in such a case? Ought we to disarm ourselves of any fair right of animadversion, whenever that institution shall be a legitimate subject of consideration? I own, I think the most proper answer would be, that we do not think ourselves authorized to give an opinion on the question.

From a passage in the letter of the President, I observe an idea of establishing a branch bank of the United States in New Orleans. This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. The nation is, at this time, so strong and united in its sentiments, that it cannot be shaken at this moment. But suppose a series of untoward events should occur, sufficient to bring into doubt the competency of a republican government to meet a crisis of great danger, or to unhinge the confidence of the people in the public functionaries; an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile? That it is so hostile we know, 1, from a knowledge of the principles of the persons composing the body of directors in every bank, principal or branch; and those of most of the stockholders: 2, from their opposition to the measures and principles of the government, and to the election of those friendly to them: and 3, from the sentiments of the newspapers they support. Now, while we are strong, it is the greatest duty we owe to the safety of our Constitution, to bring this powerful enemy to a perfect subordination under its authorities. The first measure would be to reduce them to an equal footing only with other banks, as to the favors of the government. But, in order to be able to meet a general combination of the banks against us, in a critical emergency, could we not make a beginning towards an independent use of our own money, towards holding our own bank in all the deposits where it is received, and letting the treasurer give his draft or note, for payment at any particular place, which, in a well-conducted government, ought to have as much credit as any private draft, or bank note, or bill, and would give us the same facilities which we derive from the banks? I pray you to turn this subject in your mind, and to give it the benefit of your knowledge of details; whereas, I have only very general views of the subject. Affectionate salutations.

TO GOVERNOR CLINTON.

WASHINGTON, December 31, 1803.

DEAR SIR,--I received last night your favor of the 22d, written on the occasion of the libellous pamphlet lately published with you. I began to read it, but the dulness of the first page made me give up the reading for a dip into here and there a passage, till I came to what respected myself. The falsehood of that gave me a test for the rest of the work, and considering it always useless to read lies, I threw it by. As to yourself, be assured no contradiction was necessary. The uniform tenor of a man's life furnishes better evidence of what he has said or done on any particular occasion than the word of an enemy, and of an enemy too who shows that he prefers the use of falsehoods which suit him to truths which do not. Little squibs in certain papers had long ago apprized me of a design to sow tares between particular republican characters, but to divide those by lying tales whom truths cannot divide, is the hackneyed policy of the gossips of every society. Our business is to march straight forward to the object which has occupied us for eight and twenty years, without either turning to the right or left. My opinion is that two or three years more will bring back to the fold of republicanism all our wandering brethren whom the cry of "wolf" scattered in 1798. Till that is done, let every man stand to his post, and hazard nothing by change. And when that is done, you and I may retire to the tranquillity which our years begin to call for, and revise with satisfaction the efforts of the age we happened to be born in, crowned with complete success. In the hour of death we shall have the consolation to see established in the land of our fathers the most wonderful work of wisdom and disinterested patriotism that has ever yet appeared on the globe.

In confidence that you will not be weary in well doing, I tender my wishes that your future days may be as happy as your past ones have been useful, and pray you to accept my friendly salutations and assurances of high consideration and respect.

TO CAPTAIN MERIWETHER LEWIS.

WASHINGTON, January 22, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--My letters since your departure have been of July 11th and 15th, November 16th, and January 13th. Yours received are of July 8th, 15th, 22d, and 25th, September 25th and 30th, and October 3d. Since the date of the last we have no certain information of your movements. With mine of November 16th, I sent you some extracts made by myself from the journal of an agent of the trading company of St. Louis up the Missouri. I now enclose a translation of that journal in full for your information. In that of the 13th instant I enclosed you a map of a Mr. Evans, a Welshman, employed by the Spanish government for that purpose, but whose original object I believe had been to go in search of the Welsh Indians, said to be up the Missouri. On this subject a Mr. Rees, of the same nation, established in the western part of Pennsylvania, will write to you. New Orleans was delivered to us on the 20th of December, and our garrisons and government established there. The orders for the delivery of the upper ports were to leave New Orleans on the 28th, and we presume all those ports will be occupied by our troops by the last day of the present month. When your instructions were penned, this new position was not so authentically known as to affect the complexion of your instructions. Being now become sovereigns of the country, without, however, any diminution of the Indian rights of occupancy, we are authorized to propose to them in direct terms the institution of commerce with them. It will now be proper you should inform those through whose country you will pass, or whom you may meet, that their late fathers, the Spaniards, have agreed to withdraw all their troops from all the waters and country of the Mississippi and Missouri. That they have surrendered to us all their subjects, Spanish and French, settled there and all their posts and lands; that henceforward we become their fathers and friends, and that we shall endeavor that they shall have no cause to lament the change; that we have sent you to inquire into the nature of the country and the nations inhabiting it, to know at what places and times we must establish stores of goods among them, to exchange for their peltries; that as soon as you return with the necessary information, we shall prepare supplies of goods and persons to carry them, and make the proper establishments; that in the meantime the same traders who reside among us visit them, and who now are a part of us, will continue to supply them as usual; that we shall endeavor to become acquainted with them as soon as possible; and that they will find in us faithful friends and protectors. Although you will pass through no settlements of the Sioux (except seceders) yet you will probably meet with parties of them. On that nation we wish most particularly to make a friendly impression, because of their immense power, and because we learn that they are very desirous of being on the most friendly terms with us.

I enclose you a letter, which I believe is from some one on the part of the Philosophical Society. They have made you a member, and your diploma is lodged with me; but I suppose it safest to keep it here and not to send it after you. Mr. Harvie departs to-morrow for France, as the bearer of the Louisiana stock to Paris. Captain William Brent takes his place with me. Congress will probably continue in session through the month of March. Your friends here and in Albemarle, as far as I recollect, are well. Trist will be the collector of New Orleans, and his family will go to him in the spring. Dr. Bache is now in Philadelphia, and probably will not return to New Orleans. Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of affectionate esteem and respect.

TO TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, ESQ.

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--I thank you for the seed of the fly-trap. It is the first I have ever been able to obtain, and shall take great care of it. I am well pleased to hear of the progress of republicanism with you. To do without a land tax, excise, stamp tax and the other internal taxes, to supply their place by economies, so as still to support the government properly, and to apply $7,300,000 a year steadily to the payment of the public debt; to discontinue a great portion of the expenses on armies and navies, yet protect our country and its commerce with what remains; to purchase a country as large and more fertile than the one we possessed before, yet ask neither a new tax, nor another soldier to be added, but to provide that that country shall by its own income, pay for itself before the purchase money is due; to preserve peace with all nations, and particularly an equal friendship to the two great rival powers France and England, and to maintain the credit and character of the nation in as high a degree as it has ever enjoyed, are measures which I think must reconcile the great body of those who thought themselves our enemies; but were in truth only the enemies of certain Jacobinical, atheistical, anarchical, imaginary caricatures, which existed only in the land of the raw head and bloody bones, beings created to frighten the credulous. By this time they see enough of us to judge our characters by what we do, and not by what we never did, nor thought of doing, but in the lying chronicles of the newspapers. I know indeed there are some characters who have been too prominent to retract, too proud and impassioned to relent, too greedy after office and profit to relinquish their longings, and who have covered their devotion to monarchism under the mantle of federalism, who never can be cured of their enmities. These are incurable maniacs, for whom the hospitable doors of Bedlam are ready to open, but they are permitted to walk abroad while they refrain from personal assault.

The applications for Louisiana are so numerous that it would be immoral to give a hope to the friends you mention. The rage for going to that country seems universal. Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

TO DOCTOR PRIESTLEY.

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--Your favor of December the 12th came duly to hand, as did the second letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise on Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, and will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier and better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments (Greek) of the same edition, and two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.

I very early saw that Louisiana was indeed a speck in our horizon which was to burst in a tornado; and the public are unapprised how near this catastrophe was. Nothing but a frank and friendly development of causes and effects on our part, and good sense enough in Bonaparte to see that the train was unavoidable, and would change the face of the world, saved us from that storm. I did not expect he would yield till a war took place between France and England, and my hope was to palliate and endure, if Messrs. Ross, Morris, &c. did not force a premature rupture, until that event. I believed the event not very distant, but acknowledge it came on sooner than I had expected. Whether, however, the good sense of Bonaparte might not see the course predicted to be necessary and unavoidable, even before a war should be imminent, was a chance which we thought it our duty to try; but the immediate prospect of rupture brought the case to immediate decision. The _denouement_ has been happy; and I confess I look to this duplication of area for the extending a government so free and economical as ours, as a great achievement to the mass of happiness which is to ensue. Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

Have you seen the new work of Malthus on population? It is one of the ablest I have ever seen. Although his main object is to delineate the effects of redundancy of population, and to test the poor laws of England, and other palliations for that evil, several important questions in political economy, allied to his subject incidentally, are treated with a masterly hand. It is a single octavo volume, and I have been only able to read a borrowed copy, the only one I have yet heard of. Probably our friends in England will think of you, and give you an opportunity of reading it. Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

TO MR. SAY.

WASHINGTON, February 1, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your obliging letter, and with it, of two very interesting volumes on Political Economy. These found me engaged in giving the leisure moments I rarely find, to the perusal of Malthus' work on population, a work of sound logic, in which some of the opinions of Adam Smith, as well as of the economists, are ably examined. I was pleased, on turning to some chapters where you treat the same questions, to find his opinions corroborated by yours. I shall proceed to the reading of your work with great pleasure. In the meantime, the present conveyance, by a gentlemen of my family going to Paris, is too safe to hazard a delay in making my acknowledgments for this mark of attention, and for having afforded to me a satisfaction, which the ordinary course of literary communications could not have given me for a considerable time.

The differences of circumstance between this and the old countries of Europe, furnish differences of fact whereon to reason, in questions of political economy, and will consequently produce sometimes a difference of result. There, for instance, the quantity of food is fixed, or increasing in a slow and only arithmetical ratio, and the proportion is limited by the same ratio. Supernumerary births consequently add only to your mortality. Here the immense extent of uncultivated and fertile lands enables every one who will labor to marry young, and to raise a family of any size. Our food, then, may increase geometrically with our laborers, and our births, however multiplied, become effective. Again, there the best distribution of labor is supposed to be that which places the manufacturing hands alongside the agricultural; so that the one part shall feed both, and the other part furnish both with clothes and other comforts. Would that be best here? Egoism and first appearances say yes. Or would it be better that all our laborers should be employed in agriculture? In this case a double or treble portion of fertile lands would be brought into culture; a double or treble creation of food be produced, and its surplus go to nourish the now perishing births of Europe, who in return would manufacture and send us in exchange our clothes and other comforts. Morality listens to this, and so invariably do the laws of nature create our duties and interests, that when they seem to be at variance, we ought to suspect some fallacy in our reasonings. In solving this question, too, we should allow its just weight to the moral and physical preference of the agricultural, over the manufacturing, man. My occupations permit me only to ask questions. They deny me the time, if I had the information, to answer them. Perhaps, as worthy the attention of the author of the Traité d'Economie Politique, I shall find them answered in that work. If they are not, the reason will have been that you wrote for Europe; while I shall have asked them because I think for America. Accept, Sir, my respectful salutations, and assurances of great consideration.

TO RUFUS KING, ESQ.

WASHINGTON, February 17, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--I now return you the manuscript history of Bacon's rebellion, with many thanks for the communication. It is really a valuable morsel in the history of Virginia. That transaction is the more marked, as it was the only rebellion or insurrection which had ever taken place in the colony before the American Revolution. Neither its cause nor course have been well understood, the public records containing little on the subject. It is very long since I read the several histories of Virginia, but the impression remaining on my mind was not at all that which the writer gives; and it is impossible to refuse assent to the candor and simplicity of history. I have taken the liberty of copying it, which has been the reason of the detention of it. I had an opportunity, too, of communicating it to a person who was just putting into the press a history of Virginia, but all in a situation to be corrected. I think it possible that among the ancient manuscripts I possess at Monticello, I may be able to trace the author. I shall endeavor to do it the first visit I make to that place, and if with success, I will do myself the pleasure of communicating it to you. From the public records there is no hope, as they were destroyed by the British, I believe, very completely, during their invasion of Virginia. Accept my salutations, and assurances of high consideration and respect.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

February 19, 1804.

Doctor Stevens having been sent by the preceding administration, in 1798, to St. Domingo, with the commission of consul-general, and also with authorities as an agent additional to the consular powers, under a stipulation that his expenses should be borne; an account of these is now exhibited to the Secretary of State, and the questions arise whether the payment can be authorized by the Executive, and out of what fund?

The Constitution has made the Executive the organ for managing our intercourse with foreign nations. It authorizes him to appoint and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. The term minister being applicable to other agents as well as diplomatic, the constant practice of the government, considered as a commentary, established this broad meaning; and the public interest approves it; because it would be extravagant to employ a diplomatic minister for a business which a mere rider would execute. The Executive being thus charged with the foreign intercourse, no law has undertaken to prescribe its specific duties. The permanent act of 1801, however, first, where he uses the agency of a minister plenipotentiary, or chargé, restricts him in the sums to be allowed for outfit, salary, return, and a secretary; and second, when any law has appropriated a sum for the _contingent_ expenses of foreign intercourse, leaves to his discretion to dispense with the exhibition of the vouchers of its expenditure in the public offices. Under these two standing provisions there is annually a sum appropriated for the expenses of intercourse with foreign nations. The _purposes_ of the appropriation being expressed by the _law_, in terms as general as the _duties_ are by the _Constitution_, the application of the money is left as much to the discretion of the Executive, as the performance of the duties, saving always the provisions of 1801.

It is true that this appropriation is usually made on an estimate, given by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury, and by him reported to Congress. But Congress, aware that too minute a specification has its evil as well as a too general one, does not make the estimate a part of their law, but gives a sum in gross, trusting the Executive discretion for that year and that sum only; so in other departments, as of war for instance, the estimate of the Secretary specifies all the items of clothing, subsistence, pay, &c., of the army. And Congress throws this into such masses as they think best, to wit, a sum in gross for clothing, another for subsistence, a third for pay, &c., binding up the Executive discretion only by the sum, and the object generalized to a certain degree. The minute details of the estimate are thus dispensed with in point of obligation, and the discretion of the officer is enlarged to the limits of the classification, which Congress thinks it best for the public interest to make. In the case before us, then, the sum appropriated may be applied to any agency with a foreign nation, which the Constitution has made a part of the duty of the President, as the organ of foreign intercourse.

The sum appropriated is generally the exact amount of the estimate, but not always. In the present instance the estimate, being for 1803, was only of $62,550, (including two outfits,) and the appropriation was of $75,562, leaving a difference of $13,012. If indeed, there be not enough of this appropriation left to pay Dr. Stevens' just demands, they cannot be paid until Congress shall make some appropriation applicable to them. I say his _just_ demands, because by the undertaking of the then administration to pay his expenses, justice as well as law will understand his _reasonable_ expenses. These must be tried by the scale which law and usage have established, whereon the Minister, Chargé, and Secretary, are given as fixed terms of comparison. The undefined agency of Dr. Stevens must be placed opposite to that term of the scale, with which it may fairly be thought to correspond; and if he has gone beyond that, his expenses should be reduced to it. I think them beyond it, and suppose that Dr. Stevens, viewing himself as a merchant, as well as a public agent, found it answer his purposes as a merchant to apply a part of his receipts in that character in addition to what he might reasonably expect from the public, not then meaning to charge to his public character the extraordinary style of expense which he believed at the time he could afford out of his mercantile profits.

[_Statement of Dr. Stevens' case, referred to in preceding letter._]

The Constitution having provided that the President should appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers which shall be established by law, the first Congress which met passed a law (July 1, 1790) authorizing him to draw from the treasury $40,000 annually for the support of such persons as he shall commission to serve the United States in foreign parts, and for the expense incident to the business in which they may be employed; with a proviso that, exclusive of an outfit to a Minister Plenipotentiary or Chargé, not exceeding a year's salary, he should allow to any Minister Plenipotentiary not more than $9,000 a year, for all his personal services and other expenses; to a Chargé not more than $4,500; to a Secretary not more than $1,350; and with a second proviso as to the mode of settlement. This act, which was temporary, was continued by those of 1793, February 9, 1794, March 20, 1796, May 30, 1798, March 19, till 1800, May 10, when they turned the two provisos into enacting clauses, and made them permanent, and the appropriating clause which made the body of the law before, is now annually inserted in the general appropriating law. See 1800, May 7, 1801, March 3, 1802, May 1, 1803, March 2, and 1804, March --. As Congress, in order to limit the discretion of officers as far as is safe, is in the practice of throwing the objects of appropriations into groups, _e. g._ to the Secretary of State, and clerks, and other persons in that department so much; Secretary of Treasury, &c., so much; clothing for the army so much; subsistence so much; pay so much, &c. So they might have analysed the foreign appropriation by allowing for outfits of ministers so much; salaries of ministers so much; contingent expenses so much, &c. But they chose to throw it all into one mass, only providing that no outfit should exceed a year's salary, and no salary of a minister be more than $9,000; of a Chargé $4,500; Secretary $1,350, &c.; leaving the President free to give them less if he chose, and to give to Ambassadors, Envoys, and other agents, what he thought proper. From the origin of the present government to this day, the construction of the laws, and the practice under them, has been to consider the whole fund (with only the limitations before mentioned) as under the discretion of the President as to the persons he should commission to serve the United States in foreign parts, and all the expenses incident to the business in which they may be employed. The grade consequently or character in which they should be employed, their allowance, &c. Thus Governor Morris was appointed by General Washington informally and without a commission to confer with the British ministers, and was allowed for eight months (I think) $1,000. Colonel Humphreys was appointed in 1790, to go as an agent to Madrid, and was allowed at the rate of $2,250 per annum. Dumas was kept at the Hague many years as an agent at $1,300 a year. Mr. Cutting was allowed disbursements for sailors in London in 1791, $233 33. Presents were made to the Chevalier Luzerne, on taking leave, worth $1,062. Van Berkel $697. Du Moustier $555, in 1791. Mr. Short was sent to Amsterdam as an agent in 1792, and allowed $444 43. James Blake was sent as agent to Madrid in 1793, and received an advance of $800. I know not how much afterwards, as I left the office of Secretary of State at the close of that year. In 1794, Mr. Jay was appointed Envoy Extraordinary, a grade not particularly named in the Constitution, or any law, yet General Washington fixed his allowance. During the present administration Mr. Dawson and Lieutenant Leonard have been sent on special agencies. From the beginning of the government it has been the rule when one of our ministers is ordered to another place on a special business, to allow his expenses on that special mission, his salary going on at his residence where his family remains. Mr. Short's mission from Paris to Amsterdam, from Paris to Madrid; Mr. Pinckney from London to Madrid; Mr. Murray's from the Hague to Paris, and others not recollected by me, are instances of this. These facts are stated to show that it has been the uniform opinion and practice that the whole foreign fund was placed by the Legislature on the footing of a contingent fund, in which they undertake no specifications, but leave the whole to the discretion of the President. The whole is but from forty to sixty or seventy thousand dollars. After the establishment of the general fund for foreign intercourse, Congress found it necessary to make a separate branch for the Barbary powers. This was done covertly in the beginning, to wit, in 1792, they gave $50,000 additional to the foreign fund, in 1794, $1,000,000 additional without limiting it to Barbary. Yet it was secretly understood by the President, and his discretion was trusted. In 1796, they gave $260,000 for treaties with the Mediterranean powers, in 1797, $280,259 03, for the expenses of negotiation with Algiers. They did not undertake a more minute analysis or specification, but left it to the President. The laws of 1796, May 6, 1797, March 3, 1799, March 2, give sums for specific purposes because these purposes were simple and understood by the Legislature. But in general, in this branch of the foreign expenses, as in the former one, the Legislature has thought that to cramp the public service by too minute specifications in cases which they could not foresee, might do more evil than a temporary trust to the President, which could be put an end to if abused.

In our western governments, heretofore established, they were so well understood by Congress, that they could and did specify every item of expense, except a very small residuum for which they made contingent appropriations. But when they came to provide at this session for the Louisiana government, with which they were not acquainted, they gave twenty thousand dollars for compensation to the officers of the government employed by the President, and for other civil expenses under the direction of the President. And their first step towards the acquisition of that country was to confide to the President two millions of dollars under the general appropriation for foreign intercourse. These facts show that so far from having experienced evil from confiding the forty thousand dollars foreign fund to the discretion of the executive without a specific analysis of its application, they have continued it on that footing, and in many other great cases where analysis was difficult or inexpedient they have given the sums in mass, and left the analysis to him, only requiring an account to be rendered.

This statement has been made in order to place on its true ground the case of Doctor Stevens. He was employed by Mr. Adams as Agent to St. Domingo, and was to be allowed his expenses, though these were not limited, yet the law limits them in such case to what were reasonable. Doubts have arisen at the treasury whether the executive had a right to make such a contract, and whether there be any fund out of which it can be paid? Some doubt has been expressed whether an appropriation law gives authority to pay for the purpose of the appropriation without some particular law authorizing it. If this be the case, the forty thousand dollar fund has been paid away without authority from its first establishment; for it never has been given but by a clause of appropriation. The executive believes this sufficient authority, and so we presume did the Legislature, or they would have given authority in some other sufficient form. And where is the rule of legal construction to be found which ascribes less effect to the words of an appropriation law, than of any other law? It is also doubted whether the estimate on which an appropriation is founded does not restrain the application to the specific articles, their number and amount as stated in the estimate? Were an appropriation law to come before a judge would he decide its meaning from its text, or would he call on the officer to produce their estimates as being a part of the law? On the whole, the following questions are to be determined: 1. Whether the laws do not justify the construction which has been uniformly given, either strictly, or at least so ambiguously, that, as in judiciary cases, the decisions which have taken place have fixed their meaning and made it law? 2. Whether they are so palpably against law that the practice must be arrested? 3. Whether it shall be arrested retrospectively as to moneys engaged but not yet actually paid, or only as to future contracts? 4. Whether any circumstances take Dr. Stevens' case out of the conditions and rights of other foreign agencies?

March 23, 1804.

TO MR. LATROBE.

WASHINGTON, February 28, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--I am sorry the explanations attempted between Dr. Thornton and yourself, on the manner of finishing the chamber of the House of Representatives, have not succeeded. At the original establishment of this place advertisements were published many months offering premiums for the best plans for a Capitol and a President's house. Many were sent in. A council was held by General Washington with the board of Commissioners, and after very mature examination two were preferred, and the premiums given to their authors, Doctor Thornton and Hobens, and the plans were decided on. Hobens' has been executed. On Doctor Thornton's plan of the Capitol the north wing has been extended, and the south raised one story. In order to get along with any public undertaking it is necessary that some stability of plan be observed--nothing impedes progress so much as perpetual changes of design. I yield to this principle in the present case more willingly because the plan begun for the Representative room will, in my opinion, be more handsome and commodious than anything which can now be proposed on the same area. And though the spheroidical dome presents difficulties to the executor, yet they are not beyond his art; and it is to overcome difficulties that we employ men of genius. While however I express my opinion that we had better go through with this wing of the Capitol on the plan which has been settled, I would not be understood to suppose there does exist sufficient authority to control the original plan in any of its parts, and to accommodate it to changes of circumstances. I only mean that it is not advisable to change that of this wing in its present stage. Though I have spoken of a spheroidical roof, that will not be correct by the figure. Every rib will be a portion of a circle of which the radius will be determined by the span and rise of each rib. Would it not be best to make the internal columns of well-burnt brick, moulded in portions of circles adapted to the diminution of the columns? 2d. Burlington, in his notes on Palladio, tells us that he found most of the buildings erected under Palladio's direction, and described in his architecture, to have their columns made of brick in this way and covered over with stucco. I know an instance of a range of six or eight columns in Virginia, twenty feet high, well proportioned and properly diminished, executed by a common bricklayer. The bases and capitols would of course be of hewn stone. I suggest this for your consideration, and tender you my friendly salutations.

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.

WASHINGTON, March 3, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--Although it is long since I received your favor of October the 27th, yet I have not had leisure sooner to acknowledge it. In the middle and southern States, as great an union of sentiment has now taken place as is perhaps desirable. For as there will always be an opposition, I believe it had better be from avowed monarchists than republicans. New York seems to be in danger of republican division; Vermont is solidly with us; Rhode Island with us on anomalous grounds; New Hampshire on the verge of the republican shore; Connecticut advancing towards it very slowly, but with steady step; your State only uncertain of making port at all. I had forgotten Delaware, which will be always uncertain, from the divided character of her citizens. If the amendment of the Constitution passes Rhode Island, (and we expect to hear in a day or two,) the election for the ensuing four years seems to present nothing formidable. I sincerely regret that the unbounded calumnies of the federal party have obliged me to throw myself on the verdict of my country for trial, my great desire having been to retire, at the end of the present term, to a life of tranquillity; and it was my decided purpose when I entered into office. They force my continuance. If we can keep the vessel of State as steadily in her course for another four years, my earthly purposes will be accomplished, and I shall be free to enjoy, as you are doing, my family, my farm, and my books. That your enjoyments may continue as long as you shall wish them, I sincerely pray, and tender you my friendly salutations, and assurances of great respect and esteem.

TO WILLIAM DUNBAR, ESQ.

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--Your favor of January 28 has been duly received, and I have read with great satisfaction your ingenuous paper on the subject of the Mississippi, which I shall immediately forward to the Philosophical Society, where it will be duly prized. To prove the value I set on it, and my wish that it may go to the public without any imperfection about it, I will take the liberty of submitting to your consideration the only passage which I think may require it. You say, page 9, "The velocity of rivers is greatest at the surface, and gradually diminishes downwards." And this principle enters into some subsequent parts of the paper, and has too much effect on the phenomena of that river not to merit mature consideration. I can but suppose it at variance with the law of motion in rivers. In strict theory, the velocity of water at any given depth in a river is (in addition to its velocity at its surface) whatever a body would have acquired by falling through a space equal to that depth. If, in the middle of a river, we drop a vertical line, _a e_, from its surface to its bottom, and (using a perch, or rather a measure of 16.125 feet, for our unit of measure) we draw, at the depths, _b c d e_, (which suppose = 1.4 9.16 perch ordinates in the direction of the stream, equal to the odd numbers, 3, 5, 7, 9 perch, these ordinates will represent the additional velocities of the water per second of time, at the depth of their respective abscissæ, and will terminate in a curve, _a f g h i_,) which will represent the velocity of their current in every point, and the whole mass of water passing on in a second of time.[19] This would be the theory of the motion of rivers, were there no friction; but the bottom being rough, its friction with the lower sheet or lamina of water will retard that lamina; the friction or viscosity of the particles of which, again, with those of the one next above, will retard that somewhat less, the 2d retard the 3d, the 3d the 4th, and so on upwards, diminishing till the retardation becomes insensible; and the theoretic curve will be modified by that cause, as at _n o_, removing the maximum of motion from the bottom somewhere upwardly. Again, the same circumstances of friction and viscosity of the particles of water among themselves, will cause the lamina at the surface to be accelerated by the quicker motion of the one next below it, the 2d still more by the 3d, the 3d by the 4th, and so on downwards, the acceleration always increasing till it reached the lamina of greatest motion. The exact point of the maximum of motion cannot be calculated, because it depends on friction; but it is probably much nearer the bottom than top, because the greater power of the current there sooner overcomes the effect of the friction. Ultimately, the curve will be sensibly varied by being swelled outwardly above, and retracted inwardly below, somewhat like _a k l m n o_, in the preceding diagram.

Indulging corollaries on this theory, let us suppose a plane surface, as a large sheet of cast-iron, let down by a cable from a boat, and made to present its surface to the current by a long vane fixed on its axis in the direction of the current. Would not the current below, laying hold of this plate, draw the boat down the stream with more rapidity than that with which it otherwise moves on the surface of the water? Again, at the cross current of the surface which flows into the Chafaleya, and endangers the drawing boats into that river, as you mention, page 18, would not the same plane surface, if let down into the under current, which moves in the direction of the bed of the main river, have the effect of drawing the vessel across the lateral current prevailing at its surface, and conduct the boat with safety along the channel of the river?

The preceding observations are submitted to your consideration. By drawing your attention to the subject, they will enable you, on further reflection, to confirm or correct your first opinion. If the latter, there would be time, before we print a volume, to make any alterations or additions to your paper which you might wish. We were much indebted for your communications on the subject of Louisiana. The substance of what was received from you, as well as others, was digested together and printed, without letting it be seen from whom the particulars came, as some were of a nature to excite ill-will. Of these publications I sent you a copy. On the subject of the limits of Louisiana, nothing was said therein, because we thought it best first to have explanations with Spain. In the first visit, after receiving the treaty, which I paid to Monticello, which was in August, I availed myself of what I have there, to investigate the limits. While I was in Europe, I had purchased everything I could lay my hands on which related to any part of America, and particularly had a pretty full collection of the English, French and Spanish authors, on the subject of Louisiana. The information I got from these was entirely satisfactory, and I threw it into a shape which would easily take the form of a memorial. I now enclose you a copy of it. One single fact in it was taken from a publication in a newspaper, supposed to be written by Judge Bay, who had lived in West Florida. This asserted that the country from the Iberville to the Perdido was to this day called Louisiana, and a part of the government of Louisiana. I wrote to you to ascertain that fact, and received the information you were so kind as to send me; on the receipt of which, I changed the form of the assertion, so as to adapt it to what I suppose to be the fact, and to reconcile the testimony I have received, to wit, that though the name and division of West Florida have been retained; and in strictness, that country is still called by that name; yet it is also called Louisiana in common parlance, and even in some authentic public documents. The fact, however, is not of much importance. It would only have been an _argumentum ad hominem_. Although I would wish the paper enclosed never to be seen by anybody but yourself, and that it should not even be mentioned that the facts and opinions therein stated are founded in public authority, yet I have no objections to their being freely advanced in conversation, and as private and individual opinion, believing it will be advantageous that the extent of our rights should be known to the inhabitants of the country; and that however we may compromise on our Western limits, we never shall on the Eastern.

I formerly acquainted you with the mission of Captain Lewis up the Missouri, and across from its head to the Pacific. He takes about a dozen men with him, is well provided with instruments, and qualified to give us the geography of the line he passes along with astronomical accuracy. He is now hutted opposite the mouth of the Missouri, ready to enter it on the opening of the season. He will be at least two years on the expedition. I propose to charge the Surveyor-general N. of Ohio, with a survey of the Mississippi from its source to the mouth of the Ohio, and with settling some other interesting points of geography in that quarter. Congress will probably authorize me to explore the greater waters on the western side of the Mississippi and Missouri, to their sources. In this case I should propose to send one party up the Panis river to its source, thence along the highlands to the source of the Radoneas river and down it to its mouth, giving the whole course of both parties, corrected by astronomical observation. These several surveys will enable us to prepare a map of Louisiana, which in its contour and main waters will be perfectly correct, and will give us a skeleton to be filled up with details hereafter. For what lies north of the Missouri, we suppose British industry will furnish that. As you live so near to the point of departure of the lowest expedition, and possess and can acquire so much better the information, which may direct that to the best advantage, I have thought, if Congress should authorize the enterprise, to propose to you the unprofitable trouble of directing it. The party would consist of ten or twelve picked soldiers, volunteers with an officer, under the guidance of one or two persons qualified to survey and correct by observations of latitude and longitude, the latter lunar, and as well informed as we can get them in the departments of botany, natural history, and mineralogy. I am told there is a Mr. Walker in your town, and a Mr. Gillespie in North Carolina, possessing good qualifications. As you know them both, you can judge whether both are qualified, should two persons go, or which is best, should but one be sent, or whether there is any other person better qualified than either. Their pay would probably not exceed $1000 a year, to which would be added their subsistence. All preparations would be to be made at Natchez and New Orleans on your order. Instructions similar to those of Captain Lewis would go from here, to be added to by what should occur to yourself, and you would be the centre for the communications from the party to the government. Still this is a matter of speculation only, as Congress are hurrying over their business for adjournment, and may leave this article of it unfinished. In that case what I have said will be as if I had not said it.

There is such a difference of opinion in Congress as to the government to be given to Louisiana, that they may continue the present one another year. I hope and urge their not doing it, and the establishment of a government on the spot capable of meeting promptly its own emergencies. Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

FOOTNOTE:

[19] These ordinates are arithmetical progressionals, each of
which is double the root of its abscissa, plus unit. The equation,
therefore, expressing the law of the curve is _y = 2 N x + 1_;
that is, the velocity of the water of any depth will be double the
root of that depth, plus unit. Were the line _a e a_ wall, and_ b
f e g d h e i_ troughs, along which water spouted from apertures
at _b c d e_, their intersections with the curve at _f g h i_
would mark the point in each trough to which the water would flow
in a second of time, abating for friction.

TO GIDEON GRANGER.

MONTICELLO, April 16, 1804.

DEAR SIR,--* * * * *