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, Mav 29, 1807.

DEAR SIR,-I have not written to you by Mr. Purviance, because he can give you viva 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.

TO GEORGE HAY.

WASHINGTON, June 5, 1807.

DEAR SIR,-Your favor of the 31st instant has been received, and I think it will be fortunate if any circumstance should produce a discharge of the present scanty grand jury, and a future summons of a fuller; though the same views of protecting the offender may again reduce the number to sixteen, in order to lessen the chance of getting twelve to concur. It is understood, that wherever Burr met with subjects who did not choose to embark in his projects, unless approved by their government, he asserted that he had that approbation. Most of them took his word for it, but it is said that with those who would not, the following stratagem was practised. A forged letter, purporting to be from General Dearborne, was made to express his approbation,