From John Jay to Rufus King, 19 December 1793
To Rufus King
New York 19 Decr. 1793
Dear Sir
I have been favd. with your’s of the 15, & Yesterday recd. Dunlaps paper of the 17 wh. you was so obliging as to send me.1
It is to be regretted that Mr Jefferson & Govr Mifflin still remain as it were in a back ground— I enclose an Extract from one of our Papers, by wh. you will percieve the use made of it.2
I am much inclined to think that Letters, calculated for publication, from Col. Hamilton & Genl. Knox to Mr Jefferson & Govr. Mifflin, calling on them to admit or deny the Facts in Question, wd. have been, and may yet be useful.
I shd. have no objection to amuse myself in animadverting on the Statement, but it so happens that I shall not have Liesure ^if now is the Time^ to do it in Season. I shall set out in a Day or two for Rye, where I expect to pass next week, and where a Variety of Circumstances will prevent my having any retired or vacant Hours. on my Return affairs of another kind will immediately engage me, and which, as they require the Attendance of Persons from a Distance cannot conveniently be postponed— Besides— the Evidence will not appear to be compleated while Jefferson & Mifflin remain silent,—or their Silence not accounted for—
It has happened in more than one Instance that Questions in the Circuit Courts, decided by one Set of Judges in the affirmative, have afterwards in the same Courts been decided by others in the negative— as Writs of Error do
not reach every case, this Evil has no [illegible] Remedy— The natural Tendency of such Fluctuations is obvious; nor can they otherwise be avoided, than by confining the Judges to their proper place vizt. the Sup. Court— let their Salaries be reduced— I for my part wd. consent that a Sum equal to the Expences of ^attending^ the Circuits shd. be deducted— Yours very sincerely
John Jay
Mr King
1. See RK to JJ, 15[–16] Dec., above; and Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 17 Dec., containing AH and Knox’s response to Dallas’s statement, printed without attribution under the heading “The Printers of the AMERICAN DAILY ADVERTISER have received the following statement from an authentic source, with permission to make the source known to any party concerned, who may desire it”. For the background, see the editorial note “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” above.
2. Enclosure not found. JJ may refer to “Cato No. 1,” who mocked JJ for using evidence in the “card” that “Cato” styled “The hearsay of a hearsay.” JJ himself, he said, would have rejected it “without hesitation” in any controversy litigated in federal court. “Cato” appeared in both the Diary and the Daily Advertiser (New York) on 7 Dec.