Thomas Jefferson - Memoir, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson

T >> Thomas Jefferson >> Memoir, Correspondence, And Miscellanies, From The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

In the course of this conversation, he had mentioned the liberty we
enjoyed of carrying our fish to the French islands. I repeated to
him what I had hinted in my letter of November the 20th, 1785, that I
considered as a prohibition, the laying such duties on our fish, and
giving such premiums on theirs, as made a difference between their and
our fishermen of fifteen livres the quintal, in an article which sold
for but fifteen livres. He said it would not have that effect, for two
reasons. 1. That their fishermen could not furnish supplies sufficient
for their islands, and, of course, the inhabitants must, of necessity,
buy our fish. 2. That from the constancy of our fishery, and the short
season during which theirs continued, and also from the economy and
management of ours, compared with the expense of theirs, we had always
been able to sell our fish, in their islands, at twenty-five livres the
quintal, while they were obliged to ask thirty-six livres. (I suppose he
meant the livre of the French islands.) That thus, the duty and premium
had been a necessary operation on their side, to place the sale of their
fish on a level with ours, and, that without this, theirs could not bear
the competition.

I have here brought together the substance of what was said on the
preceding subjects, not pretending to give it verbatim, which my memory
does not enable me to do. I have, probably, omitted many things
which were spoken, but have mentioned nothing which was not. I was
interrupted, at times, with collateral matters. One of these was
important. The Count de Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of
stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements
taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it; first, in
a conversation at Fontainebleau, when he first complained to me of the
navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire; secondly, in his
letter of October the 30th, 1785, on the same subject; and now, in the
present conversation, wherein he added, as another instance, the case
of the Chevalier de Mezieres, heir of General Oglethorpe, who,
notwithstanding that the 11th article of the treaty provides, that the
subjects or citizens of either party shall succeed, _ab intestato_, to
the lands of their ancestors, within the dominions of the other,
had been informed from Mr. Adams, and by me also, that his right of
succession to the General's estate in Georgia was doubtful. He observed
too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch,
that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States,
considered it as desperate; and, that our commercial regulations, in
general, were disgusting to them. These ideas were new, serious, and
delicate. I decided, therefore, not to enter into them at that moment,
and the rather, as we were speaking in French, in which language I
did not choose to hazard myself. I withdrew from the objections of the
tardiness of justice with us, and the disagreeableness of our commercial
regulations, by a general observation, that I was not sensible they were
well founded. With respect to the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, I
was obliged to enter into some explanations. They related chiefly to
the legal operation of our Declaration of Independence, to the undecided
question whether our citizens and British subjects were thereby made
aliens to one another, to the general laws as to conveyances of land to
aliens, and the doubt, whether an act of the Assembly of Georgia might
not have been passed, to confiscate General Oglethorpe's property,
which would of course prevent its devolution on any heir. M. Reyneval
observed, that in this case, it became a mere question of fact, whether
a confiscation of these lands had taken place before the death of
General Oglethorpe, which fact might be easily known by, inquiries in
Georgia, where the possessions lay. I thought it very material, that
the opinion of this court should be set to rights on these points. On
my return, therefore, I wrote the following observations on them,
which, the next time I went to Versailles (not having an opportunity
of speaking to the Count de Vergennes), I put into the hands of M.
Reyneval, praying him to read them, and to ask the favor of the Count to
do the same.

_Explanations on some of the subjects of the conversation, which I had
the honor of having with his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, when I
was last at Versailles_.

The principal design of that conversation was, to discuss, those
articles of commerce which the United States could spare, which are
wanted in France, and, if received there on a convenient footing, would
be exchanged for the productions of France. But in the course of the
conversation, some circumstances were incidentally mentioned by
the Count de Vergennes, which induced me to suppose he had received
impressions, neither favorable to us, nor derived from perfect
information.

The case of the Chevalier de Mezieres was supposed to furnish an
instance of our disregard to treatises; and the event of that case was
inferred from opinions supposed to have been given by Mr. Adams and
myself. This is ascribing a weight to our opinions, to which they are
not entitled. They will have no influence on the decision of the case.
The judges in our courts would not suffer them to be read. Their guide
is the law of the land, of which law its treaties make a part. Indeed, I
know not what opinion Mr. Adams may have given on the case. And, if any
be imputed to him derogatory of our regard to the treaty with France,
I think his opinion has been misunderstood. With respect to myself, the
doubts which I expressed to the Chevalier de Mezieres, as to the success
of his claims, were not founded on any question whether the treaty
between France and the United States would be observed. On the contrary,
I venture to pronounce that it will be religiously observed, if his case
comes under it. But I doubted whether it would come under the treaty.
The case, as I understand it, is this. General Oglethorpe, a British
subject, had lands in Georgia. He died since the peace, having devised
these lands to his wife. His heirs are the Chevalier de Mezieres, son
of his eldest sister, and the Marquis de Bellegarde, son of his younger
sister. This case gives rise to legal questions, some of which have
not yet been decided, either in England or America, the laws of which
countries are nearly the same.

1. It is a question under the laws of those countries, whether persons
born before their separation, and once completely invested, in both,
with the character of natural subjects, can ever become aliens in
either? There are respectable opinions on both sides. If the negative be
right, then General Oglethorpe having never become an alien, and having
devised his lands to his wife, who, on this supposition, also, was not
an alien, the devise has transferred the lands to her, and there is
nothing left for the treaty to operate on.

2. If the affirmative opinion be right, and the inhabitants of Great
Britain and America, born before the Revolution, are become aliens to
each other, it follows by the laws of both, that the lands which either
possessed, within the jurisdiction of the other, became the property of
the State in which they are. But a question arises, whether the transfer
of the property took place on the Declaration of Independence, or not
till an office, or an act of Assembly, had declared the transfer. If the
property passed to the State on the Declaration of Independence, then it
did not remain in General Oglethorpe, and, of course, at the time of his
death, he having nothing, there was nothing to pass to his heirs, and so
nothing for the treaty to operate on.

3. If the property does not pass till declared by an office found by
jury, or an act passed by the Assembly, the question then is, whether
an office had been found, or an act of Assembly been passed for that
purpose, before the peace. If there was, the lands had passed to the
State during his life, and nothing being left in him, there is nothing
for his heirs to claim under the treaty.

4. If the property had not been transferred to the State, before the
peace, either by the Declaration of Independence, or an office or an act
of Assembly, then it remained in General Oglethorpe at the epoch of the
peace and it will be insisted, no doubt, that, by the sixth article of
the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, which
forbids future confiscations, General Oglethorpe acquired a capacity of
holding and of conveying his lands. He has conveyed them to his wife.
But, she being an alien, it will be decided by the laws of the land,
whether she took them for her own use, or for the use of the State. For
it is a general principle of our law, that conveyances to aliens pass
the lands to the State; and it may be urged, that though, by the treaty
of peace, General Oglethorpe could convey, yet that treaty did not mean
to give him a greater privilege of conveyance, than natives hold, to
wit, a privilege of transferring the property to persons incapable, by
law, of taking it. However, this would be a question between the State
of Georgia and the widow of General Oglethorpe, in the decision of which
the Chevalier de Mezieres is not interested, because, whether she takes
the land by the will, for her own use, or for that of the State, it is
equally prevented from descending to him: there is neither a conveyance
to him, nor a succession _ab intestato_ devolving on him, which are the
cases provided for by our treaty with France. To sum up the matter in
a few words; if the lands had passed to the State before the epoch of
peace, the heirs of General Oglethorpe cannot say they have descended
on them, and if they remained in the General at that epoch, the treaty
saving them to him, he could convey them away from his heirs, and he has
conveyed them to his widow, either for her own use, or for that of the
State.

Seeing no event, in which, according to the facts stated to me, the
treaty could be applied to this case, or could give any right, whatever,
to the heirs of General Oglethorpe, I advised the Chevalier de Mezieres
not to urge his pretensions on the footing of right, nor under the
treaty, but to petition the Assembly of Georgia for a grant of these
lands. If, in the question between the State and the widow of General
Oglethorpe, it should be decided that they were the property of the
State, I expected from their generosity, and the friendly dispositions
in America towards the subjects of France, that they would be favorable
to the Chevalier de Mezieres. There is nothing in the preceding
observations, which would not have applied against the heir of General
Ogiethorpe, had he been a native citizen of Georgia, as it now applies
against him, being a subject of France. The treaty has placed the
subjects of France on a footing with natives, as to conveyances and
descent of property. There was no occasion for the assemblies to pass
laws on this subject; the treaty being a law, as I conceive, superior to
those of particular Assemblies, and repealing them where they stand in
the way of its operations.

The supposition that the treaty was disregarded on our part, in the
instance of the acts of Assembly of Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
which made a distinction between natives and foreigners, as to the
duties to be paid on commerce, was taken notice of in the letter of
November the 20th, which I had the honor of addressing to the Count de
Vergennes. And while I express my hopes, that, on a revision of these
subjects, nothing will be found in them derogatory from either the
letter or spirit of our treaty, I will add assurances that the United
States will not be behind hand, in going beyond both, when occasions
shall ever offer of manifesting their sincere attachment to this
country.

I will pass on to the observation, that our commercial regulations
are difficult and repugnant to the French merchants. To detail these
regulations minutely, as they exist in every State, would be beyond my
information. A general view of them, however, will suffice because the
States differ little in their several regulations. On the arrival of a
ship in America, her cargo must be reported at the proper office. The
duties on it are to be paid. These are commonly from two and a half to
five per cent, on its value. On many articles, the value of which is
tolerably uniform, the precise sum is fixed by law. A tariff of these is
presented to the importer, and he can see what he has to pay, as well as
the officer. For other articles, the duty is such a per cent, on their
value. That value is either shown by the invoice, or by the oath of the
importer. This operation being once over, and it is a very short one,
the goods are considered as entered, and may then pass through the whole
thirteen States, without their being ever more subject to a question,
unless they be re-shipped. Exportation is still more simple: because,
as we prohibit the exportation of nothing, and very rarely lay a duty
on any article of export, the State is little interested in examining
outward bound vessels. The captain asks a clearance for his own
purposes. As to the operations of internal commerce, such as matters of
exchange, of buying, selling, bartering, &c, our laws are the same as
the English. If they have been altered in any instance, it has been
to render them more simple. Lastly, as to the tardiness of the
administration of justice with us, it would be equally tedious and
impracticable for me to give a precise account of it in every State. But
I think it probable, that it is much on the same footing through all
the States, and that an account of it in any one of them, may found a
general presumption of it in the others. Being best acquainted with its
administration in Virginia, I shall confine myself to that. Before the
Revolution, a judgment could not be obtained under eight years, in the
supreme court, where the suit was in the department of the common law,
which department embraces about nine tenths of the subjects of legal
contestation. In that of the chancery, from twelve to twenty years were
requisite. This did not proceed from any vice in the laws, but from the
indolence of the judges appointed by the King: and these judges holding
their offices during his will only, he could have reformed the evil at
any time. This reformation was among the first works of the legislature,
after our independence. A judgment can now be obtained in the supreme
court, in one year, at the common law, and in about three years, in the
chancery. But more particularly to protect the commerce of France, which
at that moment was considerable with us, a law was passed, giving
all suits wherein a foreigner was a party, a privilege to be tried
immediately, on the return of his process, without waiting till those
of natives, which stand before them, shall have been decided on. Out of
this act, however, the British stand excluded by a subsequent one. This,
with its causes, must be explained. The British army, after ravaging
the State of Virginia, had sent off a very great number of slaves to New
York. By the seventh article of the treaty of peace, they stipulated
not to carry away any of these. Notwithstanding this, it was known, when
they were evacuating New York, that they were carrying away the slaves.
General Washington made an official demand of Sir Guy Carleton, that he
should cease to send them away. He answered, that these people had come
to them under promise of the King's protection, and that that promise
should be fulfilled, in preference to the stipulation in the treaty. The
State of Virginia, to which nearly the whole of these slaves belonged,
passed a law to forbid the recovery of debts due to British subjects.
They declared, at the same time, they would repeal the law, if Congress
were of opinion they ought to do it. But, desirous that their citizens
should be discharging their debts, they afterwards permitted British
creditors to prosecute their suits, and to receive their debts in seven
equal and annual payments; relying that the demand for the slaves would
either be admitted or denied, in time to lay their hands on some of
the latter payments for reimbursement. The immensity of this debt was
another reason for forbidding such a mass of property to be offered for
sale under execution at once, as, from the small quantity of circulating
money, it must have sold for little or nothing, whereby the creditor
would have failed to receive his money, and the debtor would have lost
his whole estate, without being discharged of his debt. This is the
history of the delay of justice in that country, in the case of British
creditors. As to all others, its administration is as speedy as justice
itself will admit. I presume it is equally so in all the other States,
and can add, that it is administered in them all with a purity and
integrity, of which few countries afford an example.

I cannot take leave, altogether, of the subjects of this conversation,
without recalling the attention of the Count de Vergennes to what had
been its principal drift. This was to endeavor to bring about a direct
exchange between France and the United States, (without the intervention
of a third nation) of those productions, with which each could furnish
the other. We can furnish to France (because we have heretofore
furnished to England) of whale-oil and spermaceti, of furs and peltry,
of ships and naval stores, and of potash, to the amount of fifteen
millions of livres; and the quantities will admit of increase. Of our
tobacco, France consumes the value of ten millions more. Twenty-five
millions of livres, then, mark the extent of that commerce of exchange,
which is, at present, practicable between us. We want, in return,
productions and manufactures, not money. If the duties on our produce
are light, and the sale free, we shall undoubtedly bring it here, and
lay out the proceeds on the spot, in the productions and manufactures
which we want. The merchants of France will, on their part, become
active in the same business. We shall no more think, when we shall have
sold our produce here, of making an useless voyage to another country,
to lay out the money, than we think, at present, when we have sold it
elsewhere, of coming here to lay out the money. The conclusion is, that
there are commodities which form a basis of exchange, to the extent of a
million of guineas annually: it is for the wisdom of those in power, to
contrive that the exchange shall be made.

Having put this paper into the hands of Monsieur Reyneval, we entered
into conversation again, on the subject of the Farms, which were now
understood to be approaching to a conclusion. He told me, that he was
decidedly of opinion, that the interest of the State required the Farm
of tobacco to be discontinued, and that he had, accordingly, given every
aid to my proposition, which lay within his sphere: that the Count de
Vergennes was very clearly of the same opinion, and had supported
it strongly with reasons of his own, when he transmitted it to the
Comptroller General; but that the Comptroller, in the discussions of
this subject which had taken place, besides the objections which the
Count de Vergennes had repeated to me, and which are before mentioned,
had added, that the contract with the Farmers General was now so far
advanced, that the article of tobacco could not be withdrawn from it,
without unraveling the whole transaction. Having understood, that,
in this contract, there was always reserved to the crown, a right to
discontinue it at any moment, making just reimbursements to the Farmers,
I asked M. Reyneval, if the contract should be concluded in its present
form, whether it might still be practicable to have it discontinued, as
to the article of tobacco, at some future moment. He said it might be
possible.

Upon the whole, the true obstacle to this proposition has penetrated,
in various ways, through the veil which covers it. The influence of the
Farmers General has been heretofore found sufficient to shake a minister
in his office. Monsieur de Calonne's continuance or dismission has been
thought, for some time, to be on a poise. Were he to shift this great
weight, therefore, out of his own scale into that of his adversaries,
it would decide their preponderance. The joint interests of France and
America would be an insufficient counterpoise in his favor.

It will be observed, that these efforts to improve the commerce of the
United States have been confined to that branch only, which respects
France itself, and that nothing passed on the subject of our commerce
with the West Indies, except an incidental conversation as to our fish.
The reason of this was no want of a due sense of its importance. Of that
I am thoroughly sensible. But efforts in favor of this branch would, at
present, be desperate. To nations with which we have not yet treated,
and who have possessions in America, we may offer a free vent of their
manufactures in the United States, for a full, or a modified admittance
into those possessions. But to France, we are obliged to give that
freedom for a different compensation; to wit, for her aid in effecting
our independence. It is difficult, therefore, to say what we have now to
offer her, for an admission into her West Indies. Doubtless it has its
price. But the question is, what this would be, and whether worth our
while to give it. Were we to propose to give to each other's citizens
all the rights of natives, they would, of course, count what they should
gain by this enlargement of right, and examine whether it would be worth
to them, as much as their monopoly of their West India commerce. If not,
that commercial freedom which we wish to preserve, and which, indeed, is
so valuable, leaves us little else to offer. An expression in my letter
to the Count de Vergennes, of November the 20th, wherein I hinted, that
both nations might, perhaps, come into the opinion, that the condition
of natives might be a better ground of intercourse for their citizens,
than that of the most favored nation, was intended to furnish an
opportunity to the minister, of parleying on that subject, if he was so
disposed, and to myself, of seeing whereabouts they would begin, that
I might communicate it to Congress, and leave them to judge of the
expediency of pursuing the subject. But no overtures have followed;
for I have no right to consider, as coming from the minister, certain
questions which were, very soon after, proposed to me by an individual.
It sufficiently accounts for these questions, that that individual
had written a memorial on the subject, for the consideration of the
minister, and might wish to know what we would be willing to do.
The idea that I should answer such questions to him, is equally
unaccountable, whether we suppose them originating with himself, or
coming from the minister. In fact, I must suppose them to be his own;
and I transmit them, only that Congress my see what one Frenchman,
at least, thinks on the subject. If we can obtain from Great Britain
reasonable conditions of commerce (which, in my idea, must for ever
include an admission into her islands), the freest ground between these
two nations would seem to be the best. But if we can obtain no equal
terms from her, perhaps Congress might think it prudent, as Holland has
done, to connect us unequivocally with France. Holland has purchased the
protection of France. The price she pays is, aid in time of war. It is
interesting for us to purchase a free commerce with the French islands.
But whether it is best to pay for it, by aids in war, or by privileges
in commerce; or not to purchase it at all, is the question.

LETTER CXLVII.--TO T. HOPKINSON, January 3, 1786

TO T. HOPKINSON.

Paris, January 3, 1786.

Dear Sir,

I wrote you last on the 25th of September. Since that I have received
yours of October the 25th, enclosing a duplicate of the last invented
tongue for the harpsichord. The letter enclosing another of them, and
accompanied by newspapers, which you mention in that of October the
25th, has never come to hand. I will embrace the first opportunity of
sending you the crayons. Perhaps they may come with this, which I think
to deliver to Mr. Bingham, who leaves us on Saturday, for London. If, on
consulting him, I find the conveyance from London uncertain, you shall
receive them by a Mr. Barrett, who goes from hence for New York, next
month. You have not authorized me to try to avail you of the new tongue.
Indeed, the ill success of my endeavors with the last does not promise
much with this. However, I shall try. Houdon only stopped a moment, to
deliver me your letter, so that I have not yet had an opportunity of
asking his opinion of the improvement. I am glad you are pleased with
his work. He is among the foremost, or, perhaps, the foremost artist in
the world.

Turning to your _Encyclopedie, Arts et Metiers_, tome 3, part 1, page
393, you will find mentioned an instrument, invented by a Monsieur
Renaudin, for determining the true time of the musical movements, largo,
adagio, &c. I went to see it. He showed me his first invention; the
price of the machine was twenty-five guineas: then his second, which
he had been able to make for about half that sum. Both of these had
a mainspring and a balance-wheel, for their mover and regulator. The
strokes are made by a small hammer. He then showed me his last, which is
moved by a weight and regulated by a pendulum, and which cost only-two
guineas and a half. It presents, in front, a dial-plate like that of
a clock, on which are arranged, in a circle, the words _largo, adagio,
andante, allegro, presto_. The circle is moreover divided into fifty-two
equal degrees. _Largo_ is at 1, _adagio_ at 11, _andante_ at 22,
_allegro_ at 36, and _presto_ at 46. Turning the index to any one of
these, the pendulum (which is a string, with a ball hanging to it)
shortens or lengthens, so that one of its vibrations gives you a crochet
for that movement. This instrument has been examined by the academy of
music here, who were so well satisfied of its utility, that they have
ordered all music which shall be printed here, in future, to have the
movements numbered in correspondence with this plexi-chronometer. I need
not tell you that the numbers between two movements, as between 22 and
36, give the quicker or slower degrees of the movements, such as the
quick _andante_, or moderate _allegro_. The instrument is useful, but
still it may be greatly simplified. I got him to make me one, and having
fixed a pendulum vibrating seconds, I tried by that the vibrations of
his pendulum, according to the several movements. I find the pendulum
regulated to Largo