embargo. If they make satisfaction for the Chesapeake, we must revoke our proclamation, and generalize its operation by a law. If they keep up impressments, we must adhere to non-intercourse, manufacturers' and a navigation act. I enclose for your perusal a letter of Mr. Short's. I inform him that any one of the persons he names would be approved, the government never recognizing a difference between the two parties of republicans in Pennsylvania. *

I salute you with constant affection.

TO MR. SHORT.

MONTICELLO, September 6, 1808. DEAR SIR,-I avail myself of the last moment allowed by the departure of the post to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 27th and 31st ult., and to say in answer to the last, that any one of the three persons you there propose would be approved as to their politics, for in appointments to office the government refuses to know any difference between descriptions of republicans, all of whom are in principle, and co-operate, with the government. Biddle we know, and have formed an excellent opinion of him. His travelling and exercise in business must have given him advantages. I am much pleased with the account you give of the sentiments of the federalists of Philadelphia as to the embargo, and that they are not in sentiment with the insurgents of the north. The papers have lately advanced in boldness and flagitiousness beyond even themselves. Such daring and atrocious lies as fill the third and fourth columns of the third page of the United States Gazette of August 31st, were never before, I believe, published with impunity in any country. However, I have from the beginning determined to submit myself as the subject on whom may be proved the impotency of a free press in a country like ours, against those who conduct themselves honestly and enter into no intrigue. I admit at the same time that restraining the press to truth, as the present laws

do, is the only way of making it useful. But I have thought necessary first to prove it can never be dangerous. Not knowing whether I shall have another occasion to address you here, be assured that my sincere affections and wishes for your success and happiness accompany you everywhere.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

MONTICELLO, September 9, 1808.

DEAR SIR,-Your two letters of the 2d instant were read yesterday afternoon, and I now return you Penniman's and Gray's papers, and the New Orleans petition. Penniman's conduct deserves marked approbation, and there should be no hesitation about the expenses reasonably incurred. If all these people are convicted, there will be too many to be punished with death. My hope is that they will send me full statements of every man's case, that the most guilty may be marked as examples, and the less so suffer long imprisonment under reprieves from time to time.

Packet between Vermont and Canada.

I do not think this is a time for opening new channels of intercourse with Canada, and multiplying the means of smuggling, and am therefore against this proposition.

Mr. Gray's case.

His late rational and patriotic conduct would merit any indulgence consistent with our duty; but the reason and the rule against permitting long voyages at present, are insurmountable obstacles. It is to be hoped some circuitous means of sending his proofs can be found. A vessel may go from England as well as from here.

New Orleans Petition.

You know I have been averse to letting Atlantic flour go to New Orleans merely that they may have the whitest bread

possible. Without honoring the motives of the petition, it gives us the fact that there is western flour enough for the New Orleans market. I would therefore discourage Atlantic cargoes to that place.

I send you the petition of Thomas Beatty for Samuel Glen, of Londonderry, for permission to load a vessel for Ireland. Mr. Beatty met me in the road in one of my daily rides. I gave his paper a hasty perusal, and, asking time for consideration, I told him I would enclose it to you, who would give the answer. a more deliberate reading of it, I see nothing to exempt it from the general rules, according to which you will be so good as to dispose of it.

On

The cases from Charleston require consideration, and our regular post gives me, in fact, but one forenoon to answer letters. I will forward them to Mr. Theus by our extra post of the 13th. I salute you with friendship and respect.

TO SIMEON THEUS, ESQ.

MONTICELLO, September 10, 1808. SIR,-According to the request of Mr. Gallatin's letter, herewith enclosed, I have considered the petitions of Grove, Himely, Everingham, and Ogier & Turner, referred to me by him, and forward you the decisions for your government. They are addressed to yourself directly, to avoid unnecessary delay to the parties, by passing them through him, as regularly they should have been.

Grove's Case.

Although the circular of the 1st of July limited no precise day for the departure of vessels under permits, yet in all such cases, a reasonable time only is to be understood, such as using due diligence, will suffice for the object. Such regulations can never be deemed but as temporary, and especially in times when the political circumstances governing them are liable to daily change.

The time between the receipt at Charleston, of the circulars of July 1st and August 1st, was from the 19th or 20th of July to the 16th of August,-twenty-seven days; and within this time Mr. Grove states explicitly that he had prepared and cleared out the ship Pierce Manning, for the Havanna, and that she would have sailed before the 16th of August but for adverse winds. Considering, therefore, that the limitation of departure to the 15th of August was not known at Charleston till the 16th, so that not a moment's warning was given of it there, I think that, satisfactory proof being exhibited to the collector, that she was ready for sailing, or even very nearly ready on the 16th of August. She may now be permitted to depart, on condition that she does depart within such time as the state of her preparation, somewhat of course relaxed during the suspension, may in the judgment of the collector render necessary.

The reasons for originally limiting a day, increased by time require the exaction of this condition.

Himeley's Case.

This petition has no date; but it imports to have been written on the day of the receipt of the circular of August 1st at Charleston, and consequently on the 16th of August. It affirms that the brig Three Brothers, for Matanzas, then had on board the crew and necessary provisions, and assigns a probable reason why she could not have been ready sooner. For the reasons, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case, (that is to say, on proof of the facts to the collector, and her prompt departure,) she ought to have a permit.

Everingham's Case.

I put entirely out of sight, as having no bearing on this case, everything which passed prior to the receipt of the circular of July 1st, and consider the case as beginning de novo then, and under that circular. The petitioner declares expressly that on the publication of that circular, (July 20th,) he used every exertion to prepare the ship Diana for a voyage to the Havanna, and had just prepared her therefor when the circular of August 1st

was received. The expression just prepared, is not absolutely definite. It may respect time or degree. It implies, however, that she was very nearly, if not quite, prepared. And if the collector receives satisfactory proof that he was nearly prepared, although she might not be in absolute readiness at the first moment of receiving the warning, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case.

The case of the schooner James is very different. The petitioner only states that he had applied to the collector, and obtained leave prior to August 1st,-had begun to use exertions, &c., and had ordered her to be careened and graved, &c., when the circular of August 1st arrived, to wit, August 16th, twentyseven days had therefore intervened, and nothing more than an order given to careen. In the other cases we have seen that the twenty-seven days were sufficient to be in a state of actual readiness, even where a part of the loading was to be sent for from another State. No permit, therefore, can be granted in this case.

Ogier & Turner's Case.

The petitioners state that Ogier had time, after the receipt of the circular of July 1st, to prepare and despatch one vessel; but that they were only preparing other vessels when the second circular was received, to wit, August 16th, whereupon the collector refused to let them despatch the vessels which they had been preparing as aforesaid. A due diligence then having enabled them to despatch one vessel in the twenty-seven days, a like diligence, had it been used, might have despatched others. But from the tenor of their petition, the preparations of the others seem to have been merely incipient, and not near completion. They have consequently lost the claims on that equity which extends relief against rigorous rules, where due exertions have been used to fulfil them, and have been defeated only by accidental and unavoidable want of notice. They are not entitled

to permits in this case.