The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 5 (of 9)

TO MR. MADISON

    Monticello, May 1, 1807.

Dear Sir,—I return you Monroe's, Armstrong's, Harris's, and Anderson's letters, and add a letter and act from Gov. McKean, to be filed in your office. The proposition for separating the western country, mentioned by Armstrong to have been made at Paris, is important. But what is the declaration he speaks of? for none accompanies his letter, unless he means Harry Grant's proposition. I wish our Ministers at Paris, London, and Madrid, could find out Burr's propositions and agents there. I know few of the characters of the new British administration. The few I know are true Pittites, and anti-American. From them we have nothing to hope, but that they will readily let us back out. Whether they can hold their places will depend on the question whether the Irish propositions be popular or unpopular in England. Dr. Sibley, in a letter to Gen. Dearborne, corrects an error of fact in my message to Congress of December. He says the Spaniards never had a single soldier at Bayou Pierre till after 1805. Consequently it was not a keeping, but a taking of a military possession of that post. I think Gen. Dearborne would do well to desire Sibley to send us affidavits of that fact.

Our weather continues extremely seasonable, and favorable for vegetation. I salute you with sincere affection.

P. S. The pamphlet and papers shall be returned by next post.

TO MR. OLIVER EVANS

    Monticello, May 2, 1807.

Sir,—Your favor of the 18th came to hand two days ago. That the ingenuity of an advocate, seeking for something to defend his client, should have hazarded as an objection that it did not appear on the face of the patent itself, that you had complied with the requisitions of the act authorizing a patent for your invention, is not wonderful; but I do not expect that such an objection can seriously embarrass the good sense of a judge. The law requires, indeed, that certain acts shall be performed by the inventor to authorize a monopoly of his invention, and, to secure their being done, it has called in, and relied on, the agency of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and President. When they are satisfied the acts have been done, they are to execute a patent, granting to the inventor the monopoly. But the law does not require that the patent itself should bear the evidence that they should have been performed, any more than it requires that in a judgment should be stated all the evidence on which it is founded. The evidence of the acts on which the patent is founded, rests with those whose duty it is to see that they are performed; in fact, it is in the Secretary of State's office, where the interloper or inventor may have recourse to it if wanting. If these high officers have really failed to see that the acts were performed, or to preserve evidence of it, they have broken their trust to the public, and are responsible to the public; but their negligence cannot invalidate the inventor's right, who has been guilty of no fault. On the contrary, the patent, which is a record, has conveyed a right to him from the public, and that it was issued rightfully ought to be believed on the signature of these high officers affixed to the patent,—this being a solemn pledge on their part that the acts had been performed. Would their assertion of the fact, in the patent itself, pledge them more to the public? I do not think, then, that the disinterested judgment of a court can find difficulty in this objection. At any rate your right will be presumed valid, until they decide that it is not. Their final decision alone can authorize your resort to any remedial authority,—that is to say, to the Legislature, who alone can provide a remedy. Certainly an inventor ought to be allowed a right to the benefit of his invention for some certain time. It is equally certain it ought not to be perpetual; for to embarrass society with monopolies for every utensil existing, and in all the details of life, would be more injurious to them than had the supposed inventors never existed; because the natural understanding of its members would have suggested the same things or others as good. How long the term should be is the difficult question. Our Legislators have copied the English estimate of the term, perhaps without sufficiently considering how much longer, in a country so much more sparsely settled, it takes for an invention to become known, and used to an extent profitable to the inventor. Nobody wishes more than I do that ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement: nobody estimates higher the utility which society has derived from that displayed by yourself; and I assure you with truth, that I shall always be ready to manifest it by every service I can render you. To this assurance I add that of my great respect and esteem, and my friendly salutations.

TO J. MADISON

    Monticello, May 5, 1807.

I return you the pamphlet of the author of War in Disguise. Of its first half, the topics and the treatment of them are very commonplace; but from page 118 to 130 it is most interesting to all nations, and especially to us. Convinced that a militia of all ages promiscuously are entirely useless for distant service, and that we never shall be safe until we have a selected corps for a year's distant service at least, the classification of our militia is now the most essential thing the United States have to do. Whether, on Bonaparte's plan of making a class for every year between certain periods, or that recommended in my message, I do not know, but I rather incline to his. The idea is not new, as, you may remember, we adopted it once in Virginia during the revolution, but abandoned it too soon. It is the real secret of Bonaparte's success. Could H. Smith put better matter into his paper than the twelve pages above mentioned, and will you suggest it to him? No effort should be spared to bring the public mind to this great point. I salute you with sincere affection.

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN SMITH

    Monticello, May 7, 1807.

Dear Sir,—Your two letters of March 27th and April 6th have been received. Writing from this place, where I have not my papers to turn to, I cannot even say whether I have received such as you ask copies of. But I am sorry to answer any request of yours by saying that a compliance would be a breach of trust. It is essential for the public interest that I should receive all the information possible respecting either matters or persons connected with the public. To induce people to give this information, they must feel assured that when deposited with me it is secret and sacred. Honest men might justifiably withhold information, if they expected the communication would be made public, and commit them to war with their neighbors and friends. This imposes the duty on me of considering such information as mere suggestions for inquiry, and to put me on my guard; and to injure no man by forming any opinion until the suggestion be verified. Long experience in this school has by no means strengthened the disposition to believe too easily. On the contrary, it has begotten an incredulity which leaves no one's character in danger from any hasty conclusion. I hope these considerations will satisfy you, both as they respect you and myself, and that you will be assured I shall always be better pleased with those cases which admit that compliance with your wishes which is always pleasing to me. Accept my salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

TO MR. MADISON

    Monticello, May 8, 1807.

I return you Monroe's letter of March 5th. As the explosion in the British ministry took place about the 15th, I hope we shall be spared the additional embarrassment of his convention. I enclose you a letter of Michael Jones for circulation, and to rest with the Attorney General. It contains new instances of Burr's enlistments. I received this from Mr. Gallatin, so you can hand it to General Dearborne direct.

I expect to leave this on the 13th, but there is a possible occurrence which may prevent it till the 19th, which however is not probable. Accept affectionate salutations.

TO MR. HAY

    Washington, May 20, 1807.

Dear Sir,—Dr. Bollman, on his arrival here in custody in January, voluntarily offered to make communications to me, which he accordingly did, Mr. Madison also being present. I previously and subsequently assured him, (without, however, his having requested it,) that they should never be used against himself. Mr. Madison on the same evening committed to writing, by memory, what he had said; and I moreover asked of Bollman to do it himself, which he did, and I now enclose it to you. The object is, as he is to be a witness, that you may know how to examine him, and draw everything from him. I wish the paper to be seen and known only to yourself and the gentlemen who aid you, and to be returned to me. If he should prevaricate, I should be willing you should go so far as to ask him whether he did not say so and so to Mr. Madison and myself. In order to let him see that his prevarications will be marked, Mr. Madison will forward you a pardon for him, which we mean should be delivered previously. It is suspected by some he does not intend to appear. If he does not, I hope you will take effectual measures to have him immediately taken into custody. Some other blank pardons are sent on to be filled up at your discretion, if you should find a defect of evidence, and believe that this would supply it, by avoiding to give them to the gross offenders, unless it be visible that the principal will otherwise escape. I send you an affidavit of importance received last night. If General Wilkinson gets on in time, I expect he will bring Dunbaugh on with him. At any rate it may be a ground for an arrest and commitment for treason. Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.

TO MR. DE LA COSTE

    Washington, May 24, 1807.

Sir,—I received, in due time, your favor of April 10th, enclosing a scheme and subscription for the establishment of a museum of natural history, at Williamsburgh, by private contributions. Nobody can desire more ardently than myself, to concur in whatever may promote useful science, and I view no science with more partiality than natural history. But I have ever believed that in this, as in most other cases, abortive attempts retard rather than promote this object. To be really useful we must keep pace with the state of society, and not dishearten it by attempts at what its population, means, or occupations will fail in attempting. In the particular enterprises for museums, we have seen the populous and wealthy cities of Boston and New York unable to found or maintain such an institution. The feeble condition of that in each of these places sufficiently proves this. In Philadelphia alone, has this attempt succeeded to a good degree? It has been owing there to a measure of zeal and perseverance in an individual rarely equalled; to a population, crowded, wealthy, and more than usually addicted to the pursuit of knowledge. And, with all this, the institution does not maintain itself. The proprietor has been obliged to return to the practice of his original profession to help it on. I know, indeed, that there are many individuals in Williamsburg, and its vicinity, who have already attained a high degree of science, and many zealously pursuing it. But after viewing all circumstances there as favorably as the most sanguine of us could wish, I cannot find in them a rational ground for expecting success in an undertaking to which the other positions have been found unequal. I sincerely wish I may be mistaken, and that the success which your zeal I am sure will merit, may be equal to your wishes, as well as ours. But, for the present, I would rather reserve myself till its prospects can be more favorably estimated; because the aid we would be disposed to give to a promising enterprise, would be very different to one we might offer to a desperate one. Although less sanguine on this particular subject, I do entire justice to the zeal for the promotion of science, which has excited your effort, and shall see it with uncommon pleasure surmounting the present difficulties, or engaged in other pursuits which may reward it with better success. Be assured that no one is more sincere in wishing it, and accept my salutations and assurances of great respect and consideration.

TO MR. CLINTON

    Washington, May 24, 1807.

Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to Mr. Clinton, and his thanks for the pamphlet sent him. He recollects the having read it at the time with a due sense of his obligation to the author, whose name was surmised, though not absolutely known, and a conviction that he had made the most of his matter. The ground of defence might have been solidly aided by the assurance (which is the absolute fact) that the whole story fathered on Mazzei, was an unfounded falsehood. Dr. Linn, as aware of that, takes care to quote it from a dead man, who is made to quote from one residing in the remotest part of Europe. Equally false was Dr. Linn's other story about Bishop Madison's lawn sleeves, as the Bishop can testify, for certainly Th: J. never saw him in lawn sleeves. Had the Doctor ventured to name time, place, and person, for his third lie, (the government without religion) it is probable he might have been convicted on that also. But these are slander and slanderers, whom Th: Jefferson has thought it best to leave to the scourge of public opinion. He salutes Mr. Clinton with esteem and respect.

TO GEORGE HAY, ESQ

    Washington, May 26, 1807.

Dear Sir,—We are this moment informed by a person who left Richmond since the 22d, that the prosecution of Burr had begun under very inauspicious symptoms by the challenging and rejecting two members of the Grand Jury, as far above all exception as any two persons in the United States. I suppose our informant is inaccurate in his terms, and has mistaken an objection by the criminal and voluntary retirement of the gentlemen with the permission of the court, for a challenge and rejection, which, in the case of a Grand Jury, is impossible. Be this as it may, and the result before the formal tribunal, fair or false, it becomes our duty to provide that full testimony shall be laid before the Legislature, and through them the public. For this purpose, it is necessary that we be furnished with the testimony of every person who shall be with you as a witness. If the Grand Jury find a bill, the evidence given in court, taken as verbatim as possible, will be what we desire. If there be no bill, and consequently no examination before court, then I must beseech you to have every man privately examined by way of affidavit, and to furnish me with the whole testimony. In the former case, the person taking down the testimony as orally delivered in court, should make oath that he believes it to be substantially correct. In the latter case, the certificate of the magistrate administering the oath, and signature of the party, will be proper; and this should be done before they receive their compensation, that they may not evade examination. Go into any expense necessary for this purpose, and meet it from the funds provided by the Attorney General for the other expenses. He is not here, or this request would have gone from him directly. I salute you with friendship and respect.

TO MR. HAY

    Washington, May 28, 1807.

Dear Sir,—I have this moment received your letter of the 25th, and hasten to answer it. If the grand jury do not find a bill against Burr, as there will be no examination before a petty jury, Bollman's pardon need not in that case to be delivered; but if a bill be found, and a trial had, his evidence is deemed entirely essential, and in that case his pardon is to be produced before he goes to the book. In my letter of the day before yesterday, I enclosed you Bollman's written communication to me, and observed you might go so far, if he prevaricated, as to ask him whether he did not say so and so to Mr. Madison and myself. On further reflection I think you may go farther, if he prevaricates grossly, and show the paper to him, and ask if it is not his handwriting, and confront him by its contents. I enclose you some other letters of Bollman to me on former occasions, to prove by similitude of hand that the paper I enclosed on the 26th was of his handwriting. I salute you with esteem and respect.

TO COLONEL MONROE

    Washington, May 29, 1807.

Dear Sir,—I have not written to you by Mr. Purviance, because he can give you vivâ voce all the details of our affairs here, with a minuteness beyond the bounds of a letter, and because, indeed, I am not certain this letter will find you in England. The sole object in writing it, is to add another little commission to the one I had formerly troubled you with. It is to procure for me "a machine for ascertaining the resistance of ploughs or carriages, invented and sold by Winlaw, in Margaret street, Cavendish Square." It will cost, I believe, four or five guineas, which shall be replaced here instanter on your arrival. I had intended to have written you to counteract the wicked efforts which the federal papers are making to sow tares between you and me, as if I were lending a hand to measures unfriendly to any views which our country might entertain respecting you. But I have not done it, because I have before assured you that a sense of duty, as well as of delicacy, would prevent me from ever expressing a sentiment on the subject, and that I think you know me well enough to be assured I shall conscientiously observe the line of conduct I profess. I shall receive you on your return with the warm affection I have ever entertained for you, and be gratified if I can in any way avail the public of your services. God bless you and yours.

TO M. SILVESTRE, SECRETAIRE DE LA SOCIETE D'AGRICULTURE DE PARIS

    Washington, May 29, 1807.

Sir,—I have received, through the care of Gen. Armstrong, the medal of gold by which the society of agriculture at Paris have been pleased to mark their approbation of the form of a mould-board which I had proposed; also the four first volumes of their memoirs, and the information that they had honored me with the title of foreign associate to their society. I receive with great thankfulness these testimonies of their favor, and should be happy to merit them by greater services. Attached to agriculture by inclination, as well as by a conviction that it is the most useful of the occupations of man, my course of life has not permitted me to add to its theories the lessons of practice. I fear, therefore, I shall be to them but an unprofitable member, and shall have little to offer of myself worthy their acceptance. Should the labors of others, however, on this side the water, produce anything which may advance the objects of their institution, I shall with great pleasure become the instrument of its communication, and shall moreover execute with zeal any orders of the society in this portion of the globe. I pray you to express to them my sensibility for the distinctions they have been pleased to confer on me, and to accept yourself the assurances of my high consideration and respect.

TO GEORGE HAY

    Washington, June 2, 1807.

Dear Sir,—While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law. 1. Because the judges, in the outset, disclaimed all cognizance of the case, although they then went on to say what would have been their opinion, had they had cognizance of it. This, then, was confessedly an extrajudicial opinion, and, as such, of no authority. 2. Because, had it been judicially pronounced, it would have been against law; for to a commission, a deed, a bond, delivery is essential to give validity. Until, therefore, the commission is delivered out of the hands of the executive and his agents, it is not his deed. He may withhold or cancel it at pleasure, as he might his private deed in the same situation. The Constitution intended that the three great branches of the government should be co-ordinate, and independent of each other. As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it has given no control to another branch. A judge, I presume, cannot sit on a bench without a commission, or a record of a commission; and the Constitution having given to the judiciary branch no means of compelling the executive either to deliver a commission, or to make a record of it, shows it did not intend to give the judiciary that control over the executive, but that it should remain in the power of the latter to do it or not. Where different branches have to act in their respective lines, finally and without appeal, under any law, they may give to it different and opposite constructions. Thus, in the case of William Smith, the House of Representatives determined he was a citizen; and in the case of William Duane, (precisely the same in every material circumstance,) the judges determined he was no citizen. In the cases of Callendar and others, the judges determined the sedition act was valid under the Constitution, and exercised their regular powers of sentencing them to fine and imprisonment. But the executive determined that the sedition act was a nullity under the Constitution, and exercised his regular power of prohibiting the execution of the sentence, or rather of executing the real law, which protected the acts of the defendants. From these different constructions of the same act by different branches, less mischief arises than from giving to any one of them a control over the others. The executive and Senate act on the construction, that until delivery from the executive department, a commission is in their possession, and within their rightful power; and in cases of commissions not revocable at will, where, after the Senate's approbation and the President's signing and sealing, new information of the unfitness of the person has come to hand before the delivery of the commission, new nominations have been made and approved, and new commissions have issued.

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government, against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one, because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if, in noticing that case, you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. If this opinion should not be your own, I would wish it to be expressed merely as that of the executive. If it is your own also, you would of course give to the arguments such a development as a case, incidental only, might render proper. I salute you with friendship and respect.

TO ALBERT GALLATIN

    June 3, 1807.

I gave you, some time ago, a project of a more equal tariff on wines than that which now exists. But in that I yielded considerably to the faulty classification of them in our law. I have now formed one with attention, and according to the best information I possess, classing them more rigorously. I am persuaded that were the duty on cheap wines put on the same ratio with the dear, it would wonderfully enlarge the field of those who use wine, to the expulsion of whiskey. The introduction of a very cheap wine (St. George) into my neighborhood, within two years past, has quadrupled in that time the number of those who keep wine, and will ere long increase them tenfold. This would be a great gain to the treasury, and to the sobriety of our country. I will here add my tariff, (see opposite page,) wherein you will be able to choose any rate of duty you please, and to decide whether it will not, on a fit occasion, be proper for legislative attention. Affectionate salutations.

The term Claret should be abolished, because unknown in the country where it is made, and because indefinite here. The four crops should be enumerated here instead of Claret, and all other wines to which that appellation has been applied, should fall into the ad valorem class. The four crops are Lafitte, Latour and Margaux, in Medoc, and Hautbrion, in Grave.

Blanquefort, Oalon, Leoville, Cantenac, &c., are wines of Medoc. Barsac, Sauterne, Beaume, Preignac, St. Bris, Carbonien, Langon, Podensac, &c., are of Grave. All these are of the second order, being next after the four crops.

TO GEORGE HAY

    Washington, June 5, 1807.